Re: Bypassing cursors in postgres_fdw to enable parallel plans

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Yilin Zhang <jiezhilove(at)126(dot)com>, KENAN YILMAZ <kenan(dot)yilmaz(at)localus(dot)com(dot)tr>, Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bypassing cursors in postgres_fdw to enable parallel plans
Date: 2026-08-02 18:08:28
Message-ID: CA+TgmobZ1z8G_OhCHQn0VuoeZ57WJ6CY8HkvMaZPhfp0crx9zw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 5:51 AM Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Regarding your other point, that's my understanding too that this memset is working because it is the only one in struct.
> Should we also change that to clearing only pendingAreq instead of the complete struct memset that it is doing now? Should this be done as a separate patch?

Yeah, I think that should probably be changed. Not sure whether it
needs a separate patch.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2026-08-02 20:11:50 Re: GiST multirange index scans can fail to return rows
Previous Message Kirill Reshke 2026-08-02 18:04:39 Re: GiST multirange index scans can fail to return rows