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:
Russian Postgres Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to