Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6

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
Date: 2018-01-12 07:15:22
Message-ID: 5A58608A.8040208@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

(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
>>> GetExistingLocalJoinPath().
>>
>> 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.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

Attachment Content-Type Size
epqpath-for-foreignjoin-13.patch text/x-diff 47.8 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
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