Fujita-san, On 2018/05/16 18:35, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > (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?
Perhaps, keep on the page but in Older Bugs section? Thanks, Amit
