| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| 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: | 2018-05-17 05:26:33 |
| Message-ID: | 9337c496-7346-5848-575d-1988e5d3a823@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018/05/17 14:19, Amit Langote wrote:
> Looking at this for a bit, I wondered if this crash wouldn't have occurred
> if the "propagation" had also considered join relations in addition to
> simple relations. For example, if I changed inheritance_planner like the
> attached (not proposing that we consider committing it), reported crash
> doesn't occur. The fact that it's not currently that way means that
> somebody thought that there is no point in keeping all of those joinrels
> around until plan creation time. If that is so, is it a bit worrying that
> a FDW function invoked from createplan.c may try to look for one?
Oops, I forgot to attach the patch that I had used in the experiment.
Thanks,
Amit
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| propagate-child-joinrels-to-parent-root.patch | text/plain | 1.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrey Borodin | 2018-05-17 05:30:35 | Re: [Patch] Checksums for SLRU files |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-05-17 05:23:37 | Re: PATCH: pgbench - option to build using ppoll() for larger connection counts |