Re: [Bug] Inconsistent result for inheritance and FOR UPDATE.

From: Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [Bug] Inconsistent result for inheritance and FOR UPDATE.
Date: 2014-12-12 02:33:48
Message-ID: 548A540C.8050200@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

(2014/12/12 11:19), Tom Lane wrote:
> Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> (2014/12/12 10:37), Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Yeah, this is clearly a thinko: really, nothing in the planner should
>>> be using get_parse_rowmark(). I looked around for other errors of the
>>> same type and found that postgresGetForeignPlan() is also using
>>> get_parse_rowmark(). While that's harmless at the moment because we
>>> don't support foreign tables as children, it's still wrong. Will
>>> fix that too.
>
>> I don't think we need to fix that too. In order to support that, I'm
>> proposing to modify postgresGetForeignPlan() in the following way [1]
>> (see fdw-inh-5.patch).
>
> My goodness, that's ugly. And it's still wrong, because this is planner
> code so it shouldn't be using get_parse_rowmark at all. The whole point
> here is that the rowmark info has been transformed into something
> appropriate for the planner to use. While that transformation is
> relatively trivial today, it might not always be so.

OK, I'll update the inheritance patch on top of the revison you'll make.

Thanks,

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2014-12-12 03:02:26 pg_regress writes into source tree
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2014-12-12 02:29:38 Re: Review of Refactoring code for sync node detection