| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6 |
| Date: | 2017-11-28 17:35:00 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaUu=QTvfoCVfidXH=CU4_e1nWTMj=jTQpB3eoHYAVpzw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> In short, we should get rid of all of this expensive and broken logic and
> just make EPQ recheck on a foreign join be a no-op, just as it is for a
> foreign base table.
I'm not sure that it is. What of
5fc4c26db5120bd90348b6ee3101fcddfdf54800? That was before I started
putting "Discussion" links into commit messages as a matter of
routine, but I'm pretty sure that fixed what seemed to Etsuro Fujita,
Kyotaro Horiguchi, and myself to be pretty clear misbehavior. See
also 385f337c9f39b21dca96ca4770552a10a6d5af24. We've put an awful lot
of effort into this over the last few years; I'm a bit hesitant to
believe none of that did anything.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-11-28 17:41:34 | Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256 |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2017-11-28 17:27:21 | Re: documentation is now XML |