| From: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: postgres_fdw : altering foreign table not invalidating prepare statement execution plan. |
| Date: | 2017-01-06 12:58:04 |
| Message-ID: | 0783339c-0f6e-7d80-7704-603e65711d01@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017/01/06 21:25, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Etsuro Fujita
> <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> On 2017/01/03 15:57, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> The patch looks good to me, but I feel there are too many testscases.
>>> Now that we have changed the approach to invalidate caches in all
>>> cases, should we just include cases for SELECT or UPDATE or INSERT or
>>> DELETE instead of each statement?
>> I don't object to that, but (1) the tests I added wouldn't be that
>> time-consuming, and (2) they would be more expected to help find bugs, in
>> general, so I'd vote for keeping them. How about leaving that for the
>> committer's judge?
> Ok. Marking this as ready for committer.
Thanks!
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2017-01-06 13:01:04 | Re: postgres_fdw bug in 9.6 |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2017-01-06 12:50:56 | Re: Support for pg_receivexlog --post-segment command |