On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Daniele Varrazzo > <daniele.varrazzo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I'm learning now something about foreign tables in PG 9.3. I wonder if >> there is a clean way to use a sequence on the remote side, so that an >> "insert into remote_table values ([data not including id]) returning >> id" would ask the remote server to generate a new value for id. > You could always define foreign table on local node without the > columns having default values you want to enforce on remote side, and > you may even be able to do well with such a definition on local side > as it does not seem you want to make the default remotes visible on > local side Well, actually I do: see the query in question. The "returning id" requires the field id to exist on the foreign table :) > (always possible to use an extra foreign table definition > btw). So for example: Yes, of course, but I'm experimenting into how transparent would be to replace the table with a foreign table and leave some working code unchanged (it works fine with the trigger workaround). By the way even if I had a table without id where to write to and one with the id to read from doesn't help in detecting what unique id was generated remotely. -- Daniele -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
