|From:||Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|To:||Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
(2018/01/12 10:41), Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Etsuro Fujita
> <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>>> Now, if you're still super-concerned about this breaking something, we
>>> could commit it only to master, where it will have 9 months to bake
>>> before it gets released. I think that's overly conservative, but I
>>> think it's still better than waiting for the rewrite you'd like to see
>>> happen. We don't know when or if anyone is going to undertake that,
>>> and if we wait, we may easing release a v11 that's got the same defect
>>> as v9.6 and now v10. And I don't see that we lose much by committing
>>> this now even if that rewrite does happen in time for v11. Ripping
>>> out CreateLocalJoinPath() won't be any harder than ripping out
>> Agreed. Attached is an rebased version which moved the new fields in
>> JoinPathExtraData to the end of that struct.
> FYI this doesn't compile anymore, because initial_cost_hashjoin() and
> create_hashjoin_path() changed in master.
Thank you for letting me know about that! Here is an updated version.
|Next Message||Fabien COELHO||2018-01-12 07:53:33||Re: bytea bitwise logical operations implementation (xor / and / or / not)|
|Previous Message||amul sul||2018-01-12 06:13:54||Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE of partition key|