On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 2:12 AM, Etsuro Fujita > <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> On 2017/04/01 1:32, Jeff Janes wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Etsuro Fujita >>> <fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp <mailto:fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp>> wrote: >>> Done. Attached is a new version of the patch. >>> Is the fix for 9.6.3 going to be just a back port of this, or will it >>> look different? >> >> +1 for backporting; although that requires that GetForeignJoinPaths be >> updated so that the FDW uses a new function to create an alternative local >> join path (ie, CreateLocalJoinPath), that would make maintenance of the code >> easy. > > Well, the problem here is that this breaks ABI compatibility. If we > applied this to 9.6, and somebody tried to use a previously-compiled > FDW .so against a new server version, it would fail after the upgrade, > because the new server wouldn't have GetExistingLocalJoinPath and also > possibly because of the change to the structure of JoinPathExtraData. > Maybe there's no better alternative, and maybe nothing outside of > postgres_fdw is using this stuff anyway, but it seems like a concern.
I had submitted a patch in . We thought that that patch is good to fix the issue on the backbranches. But it got berried in the thread. If you think that's a feasible solution for backbranches, I will work on the comments. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers