On 2017/09/08 0:21, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:13 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
On 2017/08/30 17:20, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
Here is a patch to skip the CheckValidResultRel checks for a target table
if it's a foreign partition to perform tuple-routing for, as proposed by
Robert.
In
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:13 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> On 2017/08/30 17:20, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> Here is a patch to skip the CheckValidResultRel checks for a target table
>> if it's a foreign partition to perform tuple-routing for, as proposed by
>> Robert.
>
> In the patch, to skip the checks,
On 2017/08/30 17:20, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
Here is a patch to skip the CheckValidResultRel checks for a
target table if it's a foreign partition to perform tuple-routing for,
as proposed by Robert.
In the patch, to skip the checks, I passed to CheckValidResultRel a new
flag indicating whether
On 2017/08/30 17:20, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On 2017/08/30 9:13, Amit Langote wrote:
On 2017/08/29 20:18, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On 2017/08/25 22:26, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
Agreed, but I'd vote for fixing this in v10 as proposed; I agree
that just
On 2017/08/30 9:13, Amit Langote wrote:
On 2017/08/29 20:18, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On 2017/08/25 22:26, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
Agreed, but I'd vote for fixing this in v10 as proposed; I agree that just
ripping the CheckValidResultRel checks out
On 2017/08/29 20:18, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On 2017/08/25 22:26, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Etsuro Fujita
>> wrote:
>>> Agreed, but I'd vote for fixing this in v10 as proposed; I agree that just
>>> ripping the CheckValidResultRel checks out entirely is not a good idea,
On 2017/08/25 22:26, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
Agreed, but I'd vote for fixing this in v10 as proposed; I agree that just
ripping the CheckValidResultRel checks out entirely is not a good idea, but
that seems OK to me at least as a fix just for v10
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> Agreed, but I'd vote for fixing this in v10 as proposed; I agree that just
> ripping the CheckValidResultRel checks out entirely is not a good idea, but
> that seems OK to me at least as a fix just for v10.
I'm still not on-board with having
On 2017/08/22 9:55, Amit Langote wrote:
On 2017/08/22 1:08, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
If there are no objections, I'll add this to the open item list for v10.
This seems fairly ad-hoc to me. I mean, now you have
CheckValidResultRel not being ca
On 2017/08/22 1:08, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Etsuro Fujita
> wrote:
>> If there are no objections, I'll add this to the open item list for v10.
>
> This seems fairly ad-hoc to me. I mean, now you have
> CheckValidResultRel not being called in just this one case -- bu
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> If there are no objections, I'll add this to the open item list for v10.
This seems fairly ad-hoc to me. I mean, now you have
CheckValidResultRel not being called in just this one case -- but that
bypasses all the checks that function might
On 2017/08/07 15:45, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On 2017/08/07 15:33, Amit Langote wrote:
On 2017/08/07 15:22, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On 2017/08/07 13:11, Amit Langote wrote:> The patch looks good too.
Although, looking at the following hunk:
+ Assert(partrel->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_RELATI
On 2017/08/07 15:33, Amit Langote wrote:
On 2017/08/07 15:22, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On 2017/08/07 13:11, Amit Langote wrote:> The patch looks good too.
Although, looking at the following hunk:
+ Assert(partrel->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_RELATION ||
+partrel->rd_rel->rel
On 2017/08/07 15:22, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On 2017/08/07 13:11, Amit Langote wrote:> The patch looks good too.
> Although, looking at the following hunk:
>>
>> + Assert(partrel->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_RELATION ||
>> +partrel->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_FOREIGN_TABLE);
>
On 2017/08/07 13:11, Amit Langote wrote:> The patch looks good too.
Although, looking at the following hunk:
+ Assert(partrel->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_RELATION ||
+ partrel->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_FOREIGN_TABLE);
+
/*
Fujita-san,
On 2017/08/07 12:45, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that tuple-routing for partitioned tables that contain
> non-writable foreign partitions doesn't work as expected. Here is an
> example:
>
> postgres=# create extension file_fdw;
> postgres=# create server file_server for
Hi,
I noticed that tuple-routing for partitioned tables that contain
non-writable foreign partitions doesn't work as expected. Here is an
example:
postgres=# create extension file_fdw;
postgres=# create server file_server foreign data wrapper file_fdw;
postgres=# create user mapping for CURR
17 matches
Mail list logo
