On 2015/03/13 0:50, Tom Lane wrote:
> The tableoid problem can be fixed much less invasively as per the attached
> patch. I think that we should continue to assume that ctid is not
> meaningful (and hence should read as (4294967295,0)) in FDWs that use
> ROW_MARK_COPY, and press forward on fixing the locking issues for
> postgres_fdw by letting it use ROW_MARK_REFERENCE or something close to
> that. That would also cause ctid to read properly for rows from
> postgres_fdw.
OK, thanks!
BTW, what do you think about opening/locking foreign tables selected for
update at InitPlan, which the original patch does? As I mentioned in
[1], ISTM that ExecOpenScanRelation called from ExecInitForeignScan is
assuming that.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/54BCBBF8.3020103@lab.ntt.co.jp