Message-ID: <5CAAB9B7.3060800@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 12:02:15 +0900
From: Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Back-branch bugs with fully-prunable UPDATEs
References: <20710.1554582479@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+HiwqExk2yo57aX2Mj99nR0SOP4s43J1+nccLm6h=3UzoX0qQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+HiwqExk2yo57aX2Mj99nR0SOP4s43J1+nccLm6h=3UzoX0qQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
        Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Precedence: bulk

(2019/04/07 16:54), Amit Langote wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 5:28 AM Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>  wrote:

>> This seems to be related to what Amit Langote complained of in
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/21e7eaa4-0d4d-20c2-a1f7-c7e96f4ce440@lab.ntt.co.jp
>> but since there's no foreign tables involved at all, either it's
>> a different bug or he misdiagnosed what he was seeing.
>
> I think that one is a different bug, but maybe I haven't looked closely enough.

I started working on that from last Friday (though I didn't work on the 
weekend).  I agree on Amit's reasoning stated in that post, and I think 
that that's my fault.  Sorry for the delay.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita