| 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>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Oddity in handling of cached plans for FDW queries |
| Date: | 2016-07-15 13:35:54 |
| Message-ID: | 23274.1468589754@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> On 2016/07/15 11:48, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If we add a mechanism to let us know that the FDW doesn't care, we could
>> relax the requirement for such cases. I don't have a strong opinion on
>> whether that's worthwhile. It'd depend in part on how many FDWs there
>> are that don't care, versus those that do; and I have no idea about that.
> So, I'd vote for leaving that for future work if necessary.
Makes sense to me.
> Here is a patch for that redesign proposed by you; reverts commits
> fbe5a3fb73102c2cfec11aaaa4a67943f4474383 and
> 5d4171d1c70edfe3e9be1de9e66603af28e3afe1, adds changes for that redesign
> to the core, and adjusts the postgres_fdw code to that changes. Also, I
> rearranged the postgres_fdw regression tests to match that changes.
OK, I'll review this later today.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-07-15 13:55:11 | Re: sslmode=require fallback |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-07-15 13:30:15 | Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol |