From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com>
cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw: batch inserts vs. before row triggers
In-reply-to: 
 <CAPmGK15Y=craA1T-7-35Xk-fPB7VOrh7hFRkjrqYcmZPoRACxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAPmGK16_uPqsmgK0-LpLSUk54_BoK13bPrhxhfjSoSTVz414hA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPmGK16RDXrFm-XoNkbigpbtJm4RYPZP-nb4NvcrXHkq-Uu24w@mail.gmail.com>
 <c85d5bfb-14f8-63b8-5a9c-9ea7db031b4b@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAPmGK14iHt3u4YkCGYKuPRJz80cmSmeakjskS36rZ7ZypgcNxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPmGK17LpbTZs4m4a_6THP54UBeK9fHvX8aVVA+C6yEZDZwQcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPmGK15onjpkn08k=TNvEuB2BR3_TaLTuH=DE9caFuCPghKzgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPmGK16qutyCmyJJzgQOhfBq=NoGDqTB6O0QBZTihrbqre+oxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPmGK17+mR5eYy3v1bs92NvpBoaCyehMKBSJyPG8xRN1fiVvSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPmGK15+iuR5vn-=ZGeLw+Lia2Qm9ZKVBowuWQKJ63inS0sRLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4065383.1669395453@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAPmGK15Y=craA1T-7-35Xk-fPB7VOrh7hFRkjrqYcmZPoRACxg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com>
	message dated "Sat, 26 Nov 2022 20:38:11 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <115832.1669475475.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2022 10:11:15 -0500
Message-ID: <115833.1669475475@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/115833.1669475475%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2022 at 1:57 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Couldn't we add the field to ModifyTableState, instead?

> We could probably do so, but I thought having a global list would be
> more efficient to handle pending buffered inserts than that.

OK, as long as there's a reason for doing it that way, it's OK
by me.  I don't think that adding a field at the end of EState
is an ABI problem.

We have to do something else than add to ResultRelInfo, though.

			regards, tom lane