On 2018/05/11 21:48, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > (2018/05/11 16:19), Amit Langote wrote: >> On 2018/05/11 16:12, Amit Langote wrote: >>> Just to clarify, does this problem only arise because there is a pushed >>> down join involving the child? That is, does the problem only occur as of >>> the following commit: >>> >>> commit 1bc0100d270e5bcc980a0629b8726a32a497e788 >>> Author: Robert Haas<rh...@postgresql.org> >>> Date: Wed Feb 7 15:34:30 2018 -0500 >>> >>> postgres_fdw: Push down UPDATE/DELETE joins to remote servers. >>> >>> In other words, do we need to back-patch this up to 9.5 which added >>> foreign table inheritance? >> >> Oops, it should have been clear by the subject line that the problem >> didn't exist before that commit. Sorry. > > No. In theory, I think we could consider this as an older bug added in > 9.5, because in case of inherited UPDATE/DELETE, the PlannerInfo passed > to PlanForeignModify doesn't match the one the FDW saw at Path creation > time, as you mentioned in a previous email, while in case of > non-inherited UPDATE/DELETE, the PlannerInfo passed to that function > matches the one the FDW saw at that time. I think that's my fault :(.
Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying. > But considering there seems to be no field reports on that, I don't > think we need back-patching up to 9.5. Yeah, that might be fine, although it perhaps wouldn't hurt to have the code match in all branches. Thanks, Amit
