Re: postgres_fdw: Oddity in pushing down inherited UPDATE/DELETE joins to remote servers

Fujita-san,

On 2018/05/16 18:35, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/05/14 9:45), Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2018/05/11 21:48, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>> (2018/05/11 16:19), Amit Langote wrote:
>>>> On 2018/05/11 16:12, Amit Langote wrote:
>>>>> Just to clarify, does this problem only arise because there is a pushed
>>>>> down join involving the child?  That is, does the problem only occur as of
>>>>> the following commit:
>>>>>
>>>>> commit 1bc0100d270e5bcc980a0629b8726a32a497e788
>>>>> Author: Robert Haas<rhaas@postgresql.org>
>>>>> Date:   Wed Feb 7 15:34:30 2018 -0500
>>>>>
>>>>>       postgres_fdw: Push down UPDATE/DELETE joins to remote servers.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, do we need to back-patch this up to 9.5 which added
>>>>> foreign table inheritance?
>>>>
>>>> Oops, it should have been clear by the subject line that the problem
>>>> didn't exist before that commit.  Sorry.
>>>
>>> No.  In theory, I think we could consider this as an older bug added in
>>> 9.5, because in case of inherited UPDATE/DELETE, the PlannerInfo passed
>>> to PlanForeignModify doesn't match the one the FDW saw at Path creation
>>> time, as you mentioned in a previous email, while in case of
>>> non-inherited UPDATE/DELETE, the PlannerInfo passed to that function
>>> matches the one the FDW saw at that time.  I think that's my fault :(.
>>
>> Ah, I see.  Thanks for clarifying.
>>
>>> But considering there seems to be no field reports on that, I don't
>>> think we need back-patching up to 9.5.
>>
>> Yeah, that might be fine, although it perhaps wouldn't hurt to have the
>> code match in all branches.
> 
> I don't object to back-patching.  Should I remove this from the open
> items list for PG11?

Perhaps, keep on the page but in Older Bugs section?

Thanks,
Amit