On 2017/08/01 10:18, Amit Langote wrote:
> Good points; fixed in the updated patch.
I should have mentioned this in an earlier mail, but one thing I noticed
is this:
- the remote server.
+ the remote server. That becomes especially important if the table is
+ being used in a partition hierarchy, where it is recommended to add
+ a constraint matching the partition constraint expression on
+ the remote table.
I think this would apply to CHECK constraints on foreign tables when
implementing partitioning with inheritance. Why do we only mention this
for partition constraints?
Other than that, the patch looks good to me.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita