(2014/12/12 11:19), Tom Lane wrote: > Etsuro Fujita <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes: >> (2014/12/12 10:37), Tom Lane wrote: >>> Yeah, this is clearly a thinko: really, nothing in the planner should >>> be using get_parse_rowmark(). I looked around for other errors of the >>> same type and found that postgresGetForeignPlan() is also using >>> get_parse_rowmark(). While that's harmless at the moment because we >>> don't support foreign tables as children, it's still wrong. Will >>> fix that too. > >> I don't think we need to fix that too. In order to support that, I'm >> proposing to modify postgresGetForeignPlan() in the following way [1] >> (see fdw-inh-5.patch). > > My goodness, that's ugly. And it's still wrong, because this is planner > code so it shouldn't be using get_parse_rowmark at all. The whole point > here is that the rowmark info has been transformed into something > appropriate for the planner to use. While that transformation is > relatively trivial today, it might not always be so.
OK, I'll update the inheritance patch on top of the revison you'll make. Thanks, Best regards, Etsuro Fujita -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
