Re: [HACKERS] Another oddity in handling of WCO constraints in postgres_fdw

From: Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Arthur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Another oddity in handling of WCO constraints in postgres_fdw
Date: 2018-03-06 11:09:50
Message-ID: 5A9E76FE.9070703@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

(2018/03/06 1:57), Arthur Zakirov wrote:
> IMHO, it is worth to add more explaining comment into
> deparseReturningList, why it is necessary to merge WCO attributes to
> RETURNING clause. You already noted it in the thread. I think it could
> confuse someone who not very familiar how RETURNING is related with WITH
> CHECK OPTION.

Agreed. I added a comment to that function. I think that that comment
in combination with changes to the FDW docs in the patch would help FDW
authors understand why that is needed. Please find attached an updated
version of the patch.

Thanks for the comments!

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

Attachment Content-Type Size
fix-wco-handling-in-postgres-fdw-v5.patch text/x-diff 19.6 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ivan Kartyshov 2018-03-06 11:24:24 Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed
Previous Message Anton Dignös 2018-03-06 10:41:58 Re: IndexJoin memory problem using spgist and boxes