(2018/05/14 9:45), Amit Langote wrote: > 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.
I don't object to back-patching. Should I remove this from the open items list for PG11? Best regards, Etsuro Fujita