Re: postgres_fdw: Oddity in pushing down inherited UPDATE/DELETE joins to remote servers

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
Date: 2018-05-16 10:41:34
Message-ID: 5AFC0ADE.3000807@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

(2018/05/16 18:40), Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/05/16 18:35, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> I don't object to back-patching. Should I remove this from the open
>> items list for PG11?
>
> Perhaps, keep on the page but in Older Bugs section?

OK, I'll move to Older Bugs on that page and add to the next commitfest.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2018-05-16 10:43:16 Re: [BUGFIX] amcanbackward is not checked before building backward index paths
Previous Message Etsuro Fujita 2018-05-16 10:31:01 Re: Expression errors with "FOR UPDATE" and postgres_fdw with partition wise join enabled.