Re: BUG #15552: Unexpected error in COPY to a foreign table in atransaction
От | Amit Langote |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #15552: Unexpected error in COPY to a foreign table in atransaction |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 734ea1ad-c44f-b802-0796-51a88303dc2c@lab.ntt.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #15552: Unexpected error in COPY to a foreign table in atransaction (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #15552: Unexpected error in COPY to a foreign table in atransaction
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On 2018/12/19 10:19, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 09:44:42AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: >> About adding guards in heap_sync itself to make sure that it becomes a >> no-op for non-heap relations, I think that would make sense too. >> Although, I wonder why it doesn't return without doing anything already, >> given that it has this: >> >> heap_sync(Relation rel) >> { >> /* non-WAL-logged tables never need fsync */ >> if (!RelationNeedsWAL(rel)) >> return; > > I think that you should be careful here as we want heap_sync to remain a > rather low-level routine. For example: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180919214858.65bwponiuqb3rnn2@alap3.anarazel.de I agree. Though, Andres also said this: ===== > All the other callers of heap_sync don't care about partitioned > tables, so we could add an assertion on RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE. Or rather, it should assert the expected relkinds? ====== which is what I was thinking. Instead of specifically preventing partitioned tables, or foreign tables, or views, we could assert that only relations having heap files are passed. Thanks, Amit
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: