MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5B683F60.2070806@lab.ntt.co.jp>
References: <5AFC0865.8050802@lab.ntt.co.jp> <5B23A964.9020800@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <5B28FB19.3090809@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CA+TgmoZboTszGQk3OecBOZUFNNjzKE-SOo_Q46xtTJ4Yj95-RQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180703163519.tsigyic5xefunv74@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <5B3C2A4E.5030901@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <5B4F2BE9.3000304@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CA+TgmobR9XWEhmF3s_WsoLNnnjaFyS_xtbrVG3dCGiUgof20Nw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoZSaKq-fYALn5jf6c_X3==Rb2s8eqLDwGpV=LNNhTXYwg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5B55886F.5090906@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CA+TgmoYYTCQL=TUYbUz2b=CsQeB4o1L2+_=zHynxGVmyKUtH1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5B5712C8.9030404@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CA+TgmoazFzdp5ZVwUjk_b2cuB90WCeeWtzt1ShSbXGyg67c+Zw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5B59BA55.30200@lab.ntt.co.jp> <5B619D23.4010000@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CA+TgmoZMdNiKUGV0=-QLV1f1-Xr0CDT+8y9wLktuEiQGkt64UQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoZjYHtkw-o_4=-GXb6obF1epyivr+WnZ1SQCnU6fgtf+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <5358.1533241519@sss.pgh.pa.us> <5B64562A.9000404@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <5B645868.6030609@lab.ntt.co.jp> <5B683F60.2070806@lab.ntt.co.jp>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2018 22:57:25 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CA+TgmoYhgEkcR1E-BMS-2G8A4_5z0bbN6vCO+uR7HyQCOsWpEw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Expression errors with "FOR UPDATE" and postgres_fdw with
 partition wise join enabled.
To: Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>,
	Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar.raghuwanshi@enterprisedb.com>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> In the above I used the test whether the relation's reloptkind is
> RELOPT_BASEREL or not, but I noticed that I had overlooked the case of a
> multi-level partitioned table.  So I fixed that and added regression test
> cases for that.  I also revised comments a bit.  Attached is an updated
> version of the patch.

+       /* If so, consider partitionwise joins for that join. */
+       if (IS_PARTITIONED_REL(joinrel))
+               joinrel->consider_partitionwise_join = true;

Maybe this should assert that the inner and outer rels have
consider_partitionwise_join set.  There is an Assert quite a bit
earlier in the function that the parent join have it set, but I think
it might make sense to check the children have it set whenever we set
the flag.

Aside from that I don't really have any suggestions on this.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company