Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6

From: Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: 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: 2018-01-31 02:17:01
Message-ID: 5A71271D.3040900@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

(2018/01/31 4:56), Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:20 AM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> It looks like Etsuro-san's proposed patch locks down the choice of
>> plan more tightly, which is probably a reasonable answer.
>
> OK, committed. I added a comment along the lines you suggested
> previously, since this no longer seems like a generic test that
> happens to involve a bunch of merge joins.

Thank you!

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2018-01-31 02:48:09 Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v9.0
Previous Message Andres Freund 2018-01-31 02:05:33 Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v9.0