|From:||Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|To:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|Cc:||Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Luis Carril <luis(dot)carril(at)swarm64(dot)com>, "pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, PG Bug reporting form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: BUG #15552: Unexpected error in COPY to a foreign table in a transaction|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2018/12/19 10:24, Amit Langote wrote:
> which is what I was thinking. Instead of specifically preventing
> partitioned tables, or foreign tables, or views, we could assert that only
> relations having heap files are passed.
Sorry, that's not what I'd said in my last email. I'd said we should add
guards so that it becomes a no-op for unsupported relkinds, which is not
the same thing as the above, so maybe we shouldn't do that. We should fix
the callers so that heap_sync is called only for heap relations. So, the
patch posted by Luis is on a good path.
|Next Message||Michael Paquier||2018-12-19 02:38:14||Re: BUG #15552: Unexpected error in COPY to a foreign table in a transaction|
|Previous Message||Andy Edwards||2018-12-19 01:28:32||Re: BUG #15558: NOTIFY max channel length is undocumented|