| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: postgres_fdw: perform UPDATE/DELETE .. RETURNING on a join directly |
| Date: | 2018-02-08 01:40:41 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaxGGZyUAWQMz7c-3V85TV5-w2wmvpOYrLnALi2d9Z-dQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 6:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)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?
Uggh, I missed the fact that they were doing that. It's probably
actually useful test coverage, but it's not surprising that it isn't
stable.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-02-08 01:56:50 | Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-02-08 01:26:20 | Re: update tuple routing and triggers |