|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, 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|
Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 27 November 2017 at 16:35, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> On looking closer, the reason it's like that in Fujita-san's patch
>> is to minimize the API churn seen by FDW AddForeignUpdateTargets
>> functions, specifically whether they see a tlist that's before or
>> after what expand_targetlist() does. I'm doubtful that the
>> potential savings is worth taking risks there. In particular,
>> it seems like a good thing that expand_targetlist() verifies the
>> correct tlist ordering *after* the FDW function has acted.
>> So now my inclination is to leave this alone.
> Ah yes, that seems like a worthwhile check to keep. Never mind then.
Pushed with that and some cosmetic fiddling with comments and docs.
Thanks for the discussion!
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2017-11-27 23:16:06||Re: [HACKERS] More stats about skipped vacuums|
|Previous Message||Thomas Munro||2017-11-27 22:48:54||Re: ERROR: too many dynamic shared memory segments|