| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6 |
| Date: | 2018-01-15 16:47:43 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYjtGh_0iUTzT33aLa0WbWGd4PcjH1uABjO5hmqa7Y9aw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:09 AM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Yeah, but I don't think the above example is good enough to explain that,
> because I think the bar/baz join would produce at most one tuple in an EPQ
> recheck since we would have only one EPQ tuple for both bar and baz in that
> recheck, and the join is inner. I think such an example would probably be
> given e.g., by a modified version of the SQL where we have a full join of
> bar and baz, not an inner join.
Hmm, I was thinking that bar and baz wouldn't be constrained to return
just one tuple in that case, but I'm wrong: there would just be one
tuple per relation in that case. However, that would also be true for
a full join, wouldn't it?
Regardless of that, the patch fixes the reported problem with very
little code change, and somebody can always improve it further later.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-01-15 16:48:11 | Re: proposal: alternative psql commands quit and exit |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2018-01-15 16:35:20 | Re: Implementing SQL ASSERTION |