Hello, At Thu, 16 Apr 2015 14:43:33 -0700, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote in <20150416214333.ga...@fetter.org> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 09:35:05AM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Before suppressing the symptom, I doubt the necessity and/or > > validity of giving foreign tables an ability to be a parent. Is > > there any reasonable usage for the ability? ... > I have a use case for having foreign tables as non-leaf nodes in a > partitioning hierarchy, namely geographic.
Ah, I see. I understood the case of intermediate nodes. I agree that it is quite natural. > One might have a table at > HQ called foo_world, then partitions under it called foo_jp, foo_us, > etc., in one level, foo_us_ca, foo_us_pa, etc. in the next level, and > on down, each in general in a separate data center. > > Is there something essential about having non-leaf nodes as foreign > tables that's a problem here? No. I'm convinced of the necessity. Sorry for the noise. At Wed, 22 Apr 2015 17:00:10 -0400, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote in <CA+TgmobZVHp3D9wWCV8QJc+qGDu7=tekncbxowijzkhjucm...@mail.gmail.com> > Gee, I don't see why that would be unreasonable or invalid Hmm. Yes, as mentioned above, there's no reason to refuse non-leaf foregin tables. I didn't understood the real cause of the problem and thought that not allowing foreign *root* tables seem better than tweaking elsewhere. But that thought found to be totally a garbage :( regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
