Horton

Re: postgres_fdw: perform UPDATE/DELETE .. RETURNING on a join directly

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lathia@gmail.com>, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>
Date: 2018-02-08T16:05:34Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> (2018/02/08 10:40), Robert Haas wrote:
>> Uggh, I missed the fact that they were doing that.  It's probably
>> actually useful test coverage, but it's not surprising that it isn't
>> stable.

> That was my purpose, but I agree with the instability.  Thanks again, 
> Robert!

According to

https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=rhinoceros&dt=2018-02-08%2001%3A45%3A01

there's still an intermittent issue.  I ran "make installcheck" in
contrib/postgres_fdw in a loop, and got a similar failure on the
47th try --- my result duplicates the second plan change shown by
rhinoceros, but not the first one.  I speculate that the plan change
is a result of autovacuum kicking in partway through the run.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Temporarily instrument postgres_fdw test to look for statistics changes.

  2. postgres_fdw: Fourth attempt to stabilize regression tests.

  3. postgres_fdw: Third attempt to stabilize regression tests.

  4. postgres_fdw: Attmempt to stabilize regression tests.

  5. postgres_fdw: Push down UPDATE/DELETE joins to remote servers.