Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cy03z-0002Ud-SW for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:58:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cy03z-0005Jd-8M for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:58:47 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cy02R-00005W-PR for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:57:11 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cy02P-0008CC-3R for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:57:10 +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 v3BHv4gN020022; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 13:57:04 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Dmitry Ivanov cc: pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: Possible problem in Custom Scan API In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Dmitry Ivanov message dated "Tue, 11 Apr 2017 19:36:11 +0300" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <20020.1491933424.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 13:57:04 -0400 Message-ID: <20021.1491933424@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Dmitry Ivanov writes: > In theory, CustomScans should be able to use any Plan nodes (i.e. > 'custom_plans' list), but as far as I can understand, there's no way to > override behavior of use_physical_tlist(), which means that we might see > something like this: > ERROR: variable not found in subplan target list > if we use child IndexOnlyScan and the index does not include some of the > relation's columns. Uh, why would you see that? The planner would never generate an IndexOnlyScan in the first place if the query required any columns not available from the index. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers