| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Luis Carril <luis(dot)carril(at)swarm64(dot)com>, "pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, PG Bug reporting form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #15552: Unexpected error in COPY to a foreign table in a transaction |
| Date: | 2018-12-19 01:30:07 |
| Message-ID: | 34781ef5-d159-91a8-bd9a-a564062fea1b@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2018/12/19 10:24, Amit Langote wrote:
> which is what I was thinking. Instead of specifically preventing
> partitioned tables, or foreign tables, or views, we could assert that only
> relations having heap files are passed.
Sorry, that's not what I'd said in my last email. I'd said we should add
guards so that it becomes a no-op for unsupported relkinds, which is not
the same thing as the above, so maybe we shouldn't do that. We should fix
the callers so that heap_sync is called only for heap relations. So, the
patch posted by Luis is on a good path.
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-12-19 02:38:14 | Re: BUG #15552: Unexpected error in COPY to a foreign table in a transaction |
| Previous Message | Andy Edwards | 2018-12-19 01:28:32 | Re: BUG #15558: NOTIFY max channel length is undocumented |