Re: Odd behavior in foreign table modification (Was: Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW)

From: Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Odd behavior in foreign table modification (Was: Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW)
Date: 2016-01-12 11:49:11
Message-ID: 5694E837.6000501@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2016/01/12 20:36, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 8 January 2016 at 05:08, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:

>>> On 2016/01/06 20:37, Thom Brown wrote:
>>>> I've run into an issue:
>>>>
>>>> *# UPDATE master_customers SET id = 22 WHERE id = 16 RETURNING
>>>> tableoid::regclass;
>>>> ERROR:
>>>> CONTEXT: Remote SQL command: UPDATE public.customers SET id = 22
>>>> WHERE ((id = 16)) RETURNING NULL

>> While working on this, I noticed that the existing postgres_fdw system shows
>> similar behavior, so I changed the subject.
>>
>> IIUC, the reason for that is when the local query specifies "RETURNING
>> tableoid::regclass", the FDW has fmstate->has_returning=false while the
>> remote query executed at ModifyTable has "RETURNING NULL", as shown in the
>> above example; that would cause an abnormal exit in executing the remote
>> query in postgresExecForeignUpdate, since that the FDW would get
>> PGRES_TUPLES_OK as a result of the query while the FDW would think that the
>> right result to get should be PGRES_COMMAND_OK, from the flag
>> fmstate->has_returning=false.

>> Attached is a patch to fix that.

> I can't apply this patch in tandem with FDW DML pushdown patch (either
> v2 or v3).

That patch is for fixing the similar issue in the existing postgres_fdw
system. So, please apply that patch without the DML pushdown patch. If
that patch is reasonable as a fix for the issue, I'll update the DML
pushdown patch (v3) on top of that patch.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vladimir Sitnikov 2016-01-12 11:52:12 Re: Re: 9.4-1207 behaves differently with server side prepared statements compared to 9.2-1102
Previous Message Andres Freund 2016-01-12 11:45:04 Re: Patch: fix lock contention for HASHHDR.mutex