| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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> |
| Subject: | Re: postgres_fdw: perform UPDATE/DELETE .. RETURNING on a join directly |
| Date: | 2018-03-05 22:56:29 |
| Message-ID: | f2bd9e72-93bf-1a84-e898-d915b5f50ccf@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03/05/2018 02:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> So you can revert the rhinoceros config change if you like --- thanks
> for making it so quickly!
Ok, reverted.
> Meanwhile, I'm back to wondering what could possibly have affected
> the planner's estimates, if pg_proc and pg_statistic didn't change.
> I confess bafflement ... but we've now eliminated the autovacuum-
> did-it theory entirely, so it's time to start looking someplace else.
> I wonder if something in the postgres_fdw remote join machinery
> is not as deterministic as it should be.
Do you want me to do anything manual locally on this VM?
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2018-03-05 22:56:56 | Re: jsonpath |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-03-05 22:55:51 | Re: [HACKERS] user-defined numeric data types triggering ERROR: unsupported type |