Tom Lane wrote:
I'm unimpressed by this part --- we couldn't back-patch such a change, and I think it's unnecessary anyway in 9.6+ because the scan provider could generate a nondefault pathtarget if it wants this to happen.
You're right, of course. Thank you very much! -- Dmitry Ivanov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com Russian Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
