From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Luis Carril <luis.carril@swarm64.com>
Cc: Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Cc: PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: BUG #15552: Unexpected error in COPY to a foreign table in a transaction
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 11:52:09 +0900
Message-ID: <6daa6d4a-d4a9-bd2c-0b84-c4e31d2b9844@lab.ntt.co.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181219023814.GA6577@paquier.xyz>
References: <15552-c64aa14c5c22f63c@postgresql.org>
<8e82d10d-cc16-eed4-7634-3654f59d8053@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<LEJPR01MB00109D0BECB8A961074A7CAFE7BC0@LEJPR01MB0010.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE>
<30718b48-8020-329a-c6f0-74e1222e5283@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<5C18ECBB.2000507@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<LEJPR01MB001074FD67CB65B539122E4DE7BD0@LEJPR01MB0010.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE>
<3539e73a-313a-5406-27c7-850affb47921@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<20181219023814.GA6577@paquier.xyz>
On 2018/12/19 11:38, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:19:58AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Not sure that's a good name to give to the test file, although since I'm
>> not greatly enthusiastic about adding a TAP test for this, I don't have a
>> good suggestion. Maybe, choose a more generic name? Michael, any
>> suggestions?
>
> I have looked at the proposal seriously myself, and adding a TAP test
> for that edge case is overdoing it. So why not just adding a test to
> postgres_fdw.sql? The failure can be triggered with installcheck and
> wal_level =3D minimal. Not everybody tests with non-default options, but
> some of us do.
Yeah, I said that upthread.
> Attached is a more simple, updated, patch which adds a new test and a
> comment. I would rather not play with the semantics of heap_sync() on
> the back branches as well as on a thread dealing with a bug about COPY
> with foreign tables. Such discussions deserve a larger audience on
> -hackers.
+1
Patch looks good, by the way.
> it is a bit funny to see COPY FREEZE working for foreign tables
> actually, but perhaps this has some use-cases for some FDWs, so I'd
> rather not touch it.
Hmm, note that we don't pass CopyState->freeze option to the FDW drivers
today, though we may in the future when we add an *actual* COPY interface
to FDWs. Wouldn't it be a good idea to prevent specifying the FREEZE
option for foreign tables as COPY targets until then? Of course, that's
something for -hackers to consider.
Thanks,
Amit
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp, michael@paquier.xyz, luis.carril@swarm64.com, fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org, noreply@postgresql.org, michael.paquier@gmail.com
Subject: Re: BUG #15552: Unexpected error in COPY to a foreign table in a transaction
In-Reply-To: <6daa6d4a-d4a9-bd2c-0b84-c4e31d2b9844@lab.ntt.co.jp>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox