On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 9:45 PM jian he <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 11:24 PM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > * I'd tend to move the anti-FDW check to execution too. > > It's not actively wrong, since nowadays we don't permit > > relations to change relkind, but it seems out of place. > > Also, it seems inadequate to deal with the case of a target > > that is a partitioned table having FDW partitions. > > > Hi. > > Instead of adding another subnode in CheckValidResultRel, > I am passing ModifyTable to it, this will be more future-proof.
Thank you for working on this! I started a new thread at [1] so that I could give it a commitfest entry. Your patch looks great to me. I didn't notice that you had posted one, so I made my own, but yours is better. Doing the check in CheckValidResultRel makes a lot of sense. I thought there was one other case we should test for: when a partition has a child FDW that gets pruned, we should not raise an error. So I swapped in my own tests, which were otherwise similar to yours. That new thread also includes a patch to move the functionality check into plan-time. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BrenyUte0_UJsJiDJQi82oaBsMJn%3Dcct0Wn%3DvOqXtuDn%3DYYJA%40mail.gmail.com Yours, -- Paul ~{:-) [email protected]
