From: | Alexander Pyhalov <a(dot)pyhalov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: join pushdown and issue with foreign update |
Date: | 2021-06-01 18:47:58 |
Message-ID: | e55f17943f708a265bad9d0015165bb2@postgrespro.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane писал 2021-06-01 21:19:
> Alexander Pyhalov <a(dot)pyhalov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
>> What about the following patch?
>
> ISTM that using a specific rowtype rather than RECORD would be
> quite disastrous from the standpoint of bloating the number of
> distinct resjunk columns we need for a partition tree with a
> lot of children. Maybe we'll have to go that way, but it seems
> like an absolute last resort.
Why do you think they are distinct?
In suggested patch all of them will have type of the common ancestor
(root of the partition tree).
>
> I think a preferable fix involves making sure that the correct
> record-type typmod is propagated to record_in in this context.
> Alternatively, maybe we could insert the foreign table's rowtype
> during execution of the input operation, without touching the
> plan as such.
>
> Could we start by creating a test case that doesn't involve
> uncommittable hacks to the source code?
Yes, it seems the following works fine to reproduce the issue.
--
Best regards,
Alexander Pyhalov,
Postgres Professional
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
example.diff | text/x-diff | 999 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-06-01 19:10:45 | Re: create table like: ACCESS METHOD |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-01 18:19:01 | Re: join pushdown and issue with foreign update |