Re: postgres_fdw bug in 9.6

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw bug in 9.6
Date: 2017-08-17 18:32:50
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZ+OPnhE9owE0a0ig7F31-GyJkteTuKj1g3PCWgrD=2LQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> On 2017/04/04 18:01, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> I rebased the patch also. Please find attached an updated version of the
>> patch.
>
> I rebased the patch to HEAD. PFA a new version of the patch.

Tom, you were instrumental in identifying what was going wrong here
initially. Any chance you'd be willing to have a look at the patch?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Steele 2017-08-17 18:35:52 Update low-level backup documentation to match actual behavior
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-08-17 18:14:16 Re: [HACKERS] [postgresql 10 beta3] unrecognized node type: 90