Re: Inconsistency between Compression and Storage for Foreign Tables
| От | Zhang Mingli |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Inconsistency between Compression and Storage for Foreign Tables |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 6b42c779-9262-4de0-9813-02b3cc58ad8e@Spark обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Inconsistency between Compression and Storage for Foreign Tables (Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Feb 11, 2025 at 07:52 +0800, Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>, wrote:
IMO, the correct approach is to disallow the STORAGE parameter on
foreign tables,
which is what [1] tried to avoid for some reason. However, since this
behavior has
existed for over 10 years, I don’t think we should change it.
Hi,
I understand that the options might seem unnecessary for foreign tables in general, but they could still be useful for FDWs that choose to utilize them, as mentioned in the documentation.
And if STORAGE can exist on a foreign table, why not COMPRESSION?
That’s what confuses me, and I think it could confuse others as well if they encounter something like that.
I understand that the options might seem unnecessary for foreign tables in general, but they could still be useful for FDWs that choose to utilize them, as mentioned in the documentation.
And if STORAGE can exist on a foreign table, why not COMPRESSION?
That’s what confuses me, and I think it could confuse others as well if they encounter something like that.
Maybe someone has a different opinion about this, and we should disallow
setting STORAGE on an fdw table in future versions.
If that’s the case, why not today? I’d be happy to take care of it.
--
Zhang Mingli
HashData
--
Zhang Mingli
HashData
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: