Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ejohk-0001lU-OB for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 16:05:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ejohj-0006CD-QZ for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 16:05:43 +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 1ejohj-0006C3-GP for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 16:05:43 +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 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ejohg-0002cK-IY for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 08 Feb 2018 16:05:42 +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 w18G5Y9J028607; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 11:05:35 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Etsuro Fujita cc: Robert Haas , Pg Hackers , Rushabh Lathia , Michael Paquier , Ashutosh Bapat Subject: Re: postgres_fdw: perform UPDATE/DELETE .. RETURNING on a join directly In-reply-to: <5A7BE8E6.200@lab.ntt.co.jp> References: <5A438A45.2000909@lab.ntt.co.jp> <5A57193A.2080003@lab.ntt.co.jp> <6166.1518044513@sss.pgh.pa.us> <5A7BE8E6.200@lab.ntt.co.jp> Comments: In-reply-to Etsuro Fujita message dated "Thu, 08 Feb 2018 15:06:30 +0900" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <28605.1518105934.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 11:05:34 -0500 Message-ID: <28606.1518105934@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Etsuro Fujita writes: > (2018/02/08 10:40), Robert Haas wrote: >> Uggh, I missed the fact that they were doing that. It's probably >> actually useful test coverage, but it's not surprising that it isn't >> stable. > That was my purpose, but I agree with the instability. Thanks again, = > Robert! According to https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=3Drhinoceros&dt=3D= 2018-02-08%2001%3A45%3A01 there's still an intermittent issue. I ran "make installcheck" in contrib/postgres_fdw in a loop, and got a similar failure on the 47th try --- my result duplicates the second plan change shown by rhinoceros, but not the first one. I speculate that the plan change is a result of autovacuum kicking in partway through the run. regards, tom lane