|From:||Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|To:||Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|Cc:||Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: postgres_fdw: Oddity in pushing down inherited UPDATE/DELETE joins to remote servers|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
(2018/05/11 16:19), Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/05/11 16:12, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Just to clarify, does this problem only arise because there is a pushed
>> down join involving the child? That is, does the problem only occur as of
>> the following commit:
>> commit 1bc0100d270e5bcc980a0629b8726a32a497e788
>> Author: Robert Haas<rhaas(at)postgresql(dot)org>
>> Date: Wed Feb 7 15:34:30 2018 -0500
>> postgres_fdw: Push down UPDATE/DELETE joins to remote servers.
>> In other words, do we need to back-patch this up to 9.5 which added
>> foreign table inheritance?
> Oops, it should have been clear by the subject line that the problem
> didn't exist before that commit. Sorry.
No. In theory, I think we could consider this as an older bug added in
9.5, because in case of inherited UPDATE/DELETE, the PlannerInfo passed
to PlanForeignModify doesn't match the one the FDW saw at Path creation
time, as you mentioned in a previous email, while in case of
non-inherited UPDATE/DELETE, the PlannerInfo passed to that function
matches the one the FDW saw at that time. I think that's my fault :(.
But considering there seems to be no field reports on that, I don't
think we need back-patching up to 9.5.
|Next Message||Simon Riggs||2018-05-11 12:52:24||Re: Indexes on partitioned tables and foreign partitions|
|Previous Message||Etsuro Fujita||2018-05-11 12:46:05||Re: postgres_fdw: Oddity in pushing down inherited UPDATE/DELETE joins to remote servers|