| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Pyhalov <a(dot)pyhalov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: join pushdown and issue with foreign update |
| Date: | 2021-06-01 18:19:01 |
| Message-ID: | 2845636.1622571541@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alexander Pyhalov <a(dot)pyhalov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
> What about the following patch?
ISTM that using a specific rowtype rather than RECORD would be
quite disastrous from the standpoint of bloating the number of
distinct resjunk columns we need for a partition tree with a
lot of children. Maybe we'll have to go that way, but it seems
like an absolute last resort.
I think a preferable fix involves making sure that the correct
record-type typmod is propagated to record_in in this context.
Alternatively, maybe we could insert the foreign table's rowtype
during execution of the input operation, without touching the
plan as such.
Could we start by creating a test case that doesn't involve
uncommittable hacks to the source code?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Pyhalov | 2021-06-01 18:47:58 | Re: join pushdown and issue with foreign update |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-01 17:46:05 | Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments |