On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 2:55 AM, Etsuro Fujita <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > Ah, you are right. FOR NO KEY UPDATE and FOR KEY SHARE would be useful in > the Postgres FDW if we assume the user performs those properly based on > information about keys for a remote table. > > Sorry, my explanation was not correct, but I want to make it clear that the > proposed patch also allows the FDW to change the behavior of FOR NO KEY > UPDATE and/or FOR KEY SHARE row locking so as to match the local semantics > exactly. > > BTW, I revised docs a bit. Attached is an updated version of the patch.
Tom, you're listed as the committer for this in the CF app. Are you still planning to take care of this? It seems that time is beginning to run short. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
