Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>,
Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>,
pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-01-16T02:17:39Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes: > (2018/01/16 1:47), Robert Haas wrote: >> Hmm, I was thinking that bar and baz wouldn't be constrained to return >> just one tuple in that case, but I'm wrong: there would just be one >> tuple per relation in that case. However, that would also be true for >> a full join, wouldn't it? > Consider: > postgres=# create table bar (a int, b text); > postgres=# create table baz (a int, b text); > postgres=# insert into bar values (1, 'bar'); > postgres=# insert into baz values (2, 'baz'); > postgres=# select * from bar full join baz on bar.a = baz.a; > a | b | a | b > ---+-----+---+----- > 1 | bar | | > | | 2 | baz > (2 rows) > Both relations have one tuple, but the full join produces two join > tuples. I think it would be possible that something like this happens > when executing a local join plan for a foreign join that performs a full > join remotely. Doesn't really matter though, does it? Each of those join rows will be processed as a separate EPQ event. regards, tom lane
Commits
-
Fix test case for 'outer pathkeys do not match mergeclauses' fix.
- d397f558d555 9.6.7 landed
- 92123c6ea212 10.2 landed
- 99f6a17dd62a 11.0 landed
-
postgres_fdw: Avoid 'outer pathkeys do not match mergeclauses' error.
- 4a81c022975e 9.6.7 landed
- 3f05a30b50a7 10.2 landed
- 4bbf6edfbd5d 11.0 landed
-
postgres_fdw: Consider foreign joining and foreign sorting together.
- aa09cd242fa7 9.6.0 cited
-
Allow foreign and custom joins to handle EvalPlanQual rechecks.
- 385f337c9f39 9.6.0 cited
-
Allow FDWs to push down quals without breaking EvalPlanQual rechecks.
- 5fc4c26db512 9.6.0 cited