From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
        Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
        Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lathia@gmail.com>,
        Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
        Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw: perform UPDATE/DELETE .. RETURNING on a join
 directly
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 07 Feb 2018 15:39:33 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <6165.1518044513.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 18:01:53 -0500
Message-ID: <6166.1518044513@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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