From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lathia@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw: perform UPDATE/DELETE .. RETURNING on a join directly
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 18:01:53 -0500
Message-ID: <6166.1518044513@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoYef9czAA1gJeqh4v47Tv=dqOp4EfdU6bV8EYkOdCwvUw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5A438A45.2000909@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<5A57193A.2080003@lab.ntt.co.jp>
<CA+TgmoYef9czAA1gJeqh4v47Tv=dqOp4EfdU6bV8EYkOdCwvUw@mail.gmail.com>
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I spent a while reading through this today. I see a few decisions
> here or there that are debatable, in the sense that somebody else
> might have chosen to do it differently, but I don't see anything that
> actually looks wrong. So, committed.
The buildfarm's opinion of it is lower than yours. Just eyeballing
the failures, I'd say there was some naivete about the reproducibility
of tuple CTIDs across different platforms. Is there a good reason
these test cases need to print CTID?
regards, tom lane
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-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp, rushabh.lathia@gmail.com, michael.paquier@gmail.com, ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw: perform UPDATE/DELETE .. RETURNING on a join directly
In-Reply-To: <6166.1518044513@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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