Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dsGOA-00036y-4U for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 22:44:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dsGO9-0008DL-IM for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 22:44:09 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dsGO8-0008Bb-TQ for pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 22:44:08 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dsGO6-0006Cl-4z; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 22:44:08 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v8DMi2ZN031366; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 18:44:02 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Thomas Munro cc: Michael Paquier , Andrew Gierth , PostgreSQL mailing lists , Kevin Grittner Subject: Re: BUG #14808: V10-beta4, backend abort In-reply-to: References: <20170909064853.25630.12825@wrigleys.postgresql.org> <3702.1504976930@sss.pgh.pa.us> <9324.1504983594@sss.pgh.pa.us> <25326.1505070173@sss.pgh.pa.us> <14016.1505135324@sss.pgh.pa.us> <8201.1505149431@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Munro message dated "Tue, 12 Sep 2017 12:38:28 +1200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <31364.1505342642.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 18:44:02 -0400 Message-ID: <31365.1505342642@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-bugs Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-bugs-owner@postgresql.org Thomas Munro writes: > Aside from the RI case, the other user visible change in behaviour > will be for statements that update the same table via multiple > ModifyTable nodes (wCTEs). Our regression test has: > with wcte as (insert into table1 values (42)) > insert into table2 values ('hello world'); > ... which demonstrates the fix for the original complaint that table1 > and table2 earlier tried to use the same transition table (and > crashed). BTW, as I'm digging around in trigger.c, I can't help noticing that it provides a single "fdw_tuplestore" per trigger query level (a/k/a trigger execution context). I've not tried to test this, but it sure looks like a wCTE like your example above, directed at two separate foreign tables with triggers, would fail for exactly the same reason. That'd be a bug of pretty long standing. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs