| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: EvalPlanQual behaves oddly for FDW queries involving system columns |
| Date: | 2015-04-30 19:40:23 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZLOFi14joTUCbh8wKcKEkXTvTh=5cuAzdU=mYsb8Urqw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 2:55 AM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Ah, you are right. FOR NO KEY UPDATE and FOR KEY SHARE would be useful in
> the Postgres FDW if we assume the user performs those properly based on
> information about keys for a remote table.
>
> Sorry, my explanation was not correct, but I want to make it clear that the
> proposed patch also allows the FDW to change the behavior of FOR NO KEY
> UPDATE and/or FOR KEY SHARE row locking so as to match the local semantics
> exactly.
>
> BTW, I revised docs a bit. Attached is an updated version of the patch.
Tom, you're listed as the committer for this in the CF app. Are you
still planning to take care of this?
It seems that time is beginning to run short.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-04-30 20:02:13 | Re: EvalPlanQual behaves oddly for FDW queries involving system columns |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-04-30 19:37:44 | Re: initdb -S and tablespaces |