Re: postgres_fdw : altering foreign table not invalidating prepare statement execution plan.

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>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, 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 19:17:22
Message-ID: 18267.1483730242@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> 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.

>>> 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!

Pushed. I ended up simplifying the tests some, partly because I agreed it
seemed like overkill, but mostly because they weren't testing the bug.
The prepared statements that had parameters would have been replanned
anyway, because plancache.c wouldn't have generated enough plans to decide
if a generic plan would be ok.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-01-06 19:24:56 Re: Odd behavior with PG_TRY
Previous Message Daniel Verite 2017-01-06 19:15:13 Off-by-one oddity in minval for decreasing sequences