From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Ireneusz Pluta <ipluta(at)wp(dot)pl>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #15287: postgres_fdw: the "WHERE date_trunc('day', dt) = 'YYYY-MM-DD' does not push to remote. |
Date: | 2018-07-20 20:54:24 |
Message-ID: | CAMkU=1ydJ8pG-0Q_wrAVojDaPebQbCV5P2uZfj8ZtOiE1hUskw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> However, that could only fix the OP's problem for these particular
> functions, which are a small fraction of the ones we have that take
> collatable types but don't really care about collation. I kinda feel
> like we should have invented an "ignores collation" function property,
> so that such functions could be identified --- that would not only let
> postgres_fdw handle this honestly, but we could refrain from throwing
> unmatched-collations errors for cases where it doesn't really matter.
> Maybe it's not too late to invent that in future. If the parser sets
> inputcollid = 0 for any function marked that way, then if the function is
> incorrectly marked as ignoring collation it would get an error at runtime,
> so it seems like we could add it safely.
>
Would this automatically apply to operators as well, like hstore's ->
operator, once the fetchval function was marked? The non-shippability of
that can be a major problem.
Cheers,
Jeff
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2018-07-20 21:28:06 | LLVM jit and window functions on a temporary table |
Previous Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2018-07-20 19:02:41 | BUG #15288: Logical Replication failed when inserting record which has CHECK constraint |