| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table |
| Date: | 2017-06-05 14:19:02 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZDmOCkoNQLm4gTTUWKWGaeyjr=tbfUpcGABhzKidBzKQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I'm starting to like the approach of reverting the entire transition
>> tables patch. Failing to consider the possibility of a plan with
>> multiple ModifyTable nodes seems like a pretty fundamental design
>> mistake, and I'm not eager either to ship this with that broken or try
>> to fix it at this stage of the release cycle.
>
> Postponing the feature to v11 might be a viable solution. We don't
> have any other major work that depends on it do we?
I don't think anything that depends on it was committed to v10.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2017-06-05 14:20:46 | Re: BUG #14682: row level security not work with partitioned table |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-06-05 14:15:08 | Re: PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table |