| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(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: | 2017-06-09 21:19:31 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=mggryQyMGip4PsPUyiLdmSqdgvDXKs69zvLTQMZSdTA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>>> Also, ISTM that the code within ENRMetadataGetTupDesc() probably
>>> requires more explanation, resource management wise.
>
> Why so? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't see what's confusing
> about the status quo. I may be missing something important.
Perhaps nothing. I just thought it looked a bit odd to rely on the
target relation's TupleDesc like that. It's not quite the same as the
foreign table tuplestore stuff, because that has its own relkind, and
has a relation RTE in the parser.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-06-09 21:33:45 | Re: PostgreSQL 10 changes in exclusion constraints - did something change? CASE WHEN behavior oddity |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-06-09 21:16:08 | Re: Logical replication in the same cluster |