|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|Cc:||Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ildus Kurbangaliev <i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: [HACKERS] Bug in ExecModifyTable function and trigger issues for foreign tables|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> [ fix-rewrite-tlist-v4.patch ]
I started reviewing this patch. I did not much like the fact that it
effectively moved rewriteTargetListUD to a different file and renamed it.
That seems like unnecessary code churn, plus it breaks the analogy with
rewriteTargetListIU, plus it will make back-patching harder (since that
code isn't exactly the same in back branches). I see little reason why
we can't leave it where it is and just make it non-static. It's not like
there's no other parts of the rewriter that the planner calls.
I revised the patch along that line, and while at it, refactored
preptlist.c a bit to eliminate repeated heap_opens of the target
relation. I've not really reviewed any other aspects of the patch
yet, but in the meantime, does anyone object to proceeding this way?
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Michael Paquier||2017-11-27 01:02:22||Re: [HACKERS] More stats about skipped vacuums|
|Previous Message||Mark Dilger||2017-11-26 22:31:08||Re: Memory error in src/backend/replication/logical/origin.c|