Re: [HACKERS] Another oddity in handling of WCO constraints in postgres_fdw

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Arthur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Another oddity in handling of WCO constraints in postgres_fdw
Date: 2018-07-09 00:00:18
Message-ID: 1531094418.21382.3.camel@j-davis.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 20:09 +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Agreed.  I added a comment to that function.  I think that that
> comment 
> in combination with changes to the FDW docs in the patch would help
> FDW 
> authors understand why that is needed.  Please find attached an
> updated 
> version of the patch.
>
> Thanks for the comments!

Committed.

I made some small modifications and added a test for the case where the
foreign table is a partition of a local table, which follows a
different code path after commit 3d956d95.

Thank you!

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sean Chittenden 2018-07-09 00:26:59 Re: WAL prefetch
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2018-07-08 23:59:32 "Write amplification" is made worse by "getting tired" while inserting into nbtree secondary indexes (Was: Why B-Tree suffix truncation matters)