Re: [HACKERS] Bug in ExecModifyTable function and trigger issues forforeign tables
От | Dean Rasheed |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Bug in ExecModifyTable function and trigger issues forforeign tables |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAEZATCUvwW4nacdHcaG3E7EaEj6Pqa86FHOuzUEXaahuo10F5g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Bug in ExecModifyTable function and trigger issues for foreign tables (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Bug in ExecModifyTable function and trigger issues for foreign tables
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 27 November 2017 at 16:35, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I wrote: >> Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> writes: >>> A separate point -- it might be marginally more efficient to have the >>> work of rewriteTargetListUD() done after expand_targetlist() to avoid >>> the possible renumbering of the resjunk entries. > >> Hm. It wouldn't save a lot, but yeah, doing it in this order seems >> a bit silly when you put it like that. > > On looking closer, the reason it's like that in Fujita-san's patch > is to minimize the API churn seen by FDW AddForeignUpdateTargets > functions, specifically whether they see a tlist that's before or > after what expand_targetlist() does. I'm doubtful that the > potential savings is worth taking risks there. In particular, > it seems like a good thing that expand_targetlist() verifies the > correct tlist ordering *after* the FDW function has acted. > So now my inclination is to leave this alone. > Ah yes, that seems like a worthwhile check to keep. Never mind then. Regards, Dean
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: