From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables) |
Date: | 2013-03-22 19:29:59 |
Message-ID: | 28625.1363980599@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
> This contains some edits to comments that referred to the obsolete and
> bogus TupleDesc scanning. No mechanical alterations.
Applied with some substantial revisions. I didn't like where you'd put
the apply/restore calls, for one thing --- we need to wait to do the
applies until we have the PGresult in hand, else we might be applying
stale values of the remote's GUCs. Also, adding a call that could throw
errors right before materializeResult() won't do, because that would
result in leaking the PGresult on error. The struct for state seemed a
bit of a mess too, given that you couldn't always initialize it in one
place. (In hindsight I could have left that alone given where I ended
up putting the calls, but it didn't seem to be providing any useful
isolation.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-03-22 19:47:30 | Re: Materialized view assertion failure in HEAD |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2013-03-22 19:06:52 | Re: Default connection parameters for postgres_fdw and dblink |