|From:||Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|To:||Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: de-deduplicate code in DML execution hooks in postgres_fdw|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
(2018/07/19 17:52), Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Etsuro Fujita
> <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> +1 for the general idea. (Actually, I also thought the same thing before.)
>> But since this is definitely a matter of PG12, ISTM that it's wise to work
>> on this after addressing the issue in . My concern is: if we do this
>> refactoring now, we might need two patches for fixing the issue in case of
>> backpatching as the fix might need to change those executor functions.
> The only thing in  that would conflict with this patch is the 0002
> (and possibly 0001) patch in . We haven't yet decided anything
> about whether those patches can be back-patched or not. I think it's
> going to take much longer time for the actual solution to arise. But
> we don't have to wait for it to commit this patch as well as 0001 and
> 0002 patches in 
I've just started catching up the discussions in , so I don't think I
understand those fully, but it appears that we haven't yet reached a
consensus on what to do for that issue.
> because a. the larger solution is not likely to be
> back-patchable b. it's going to take much longer time. We don't have
> any estimate about how much longer it's going to take.
I don't understand the solution yet, so I'll study about that.
|Next Message||Andrey Borodin||2018-07-19 11:42:06||Re: GiST VACUUM|
|Previous Message||Masahiko Sawada||2018-07-19 11:29:51||Re: [WIP] [B-Tree] Retail IndexTuple deletion|