Horton

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

Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, 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: 2018-02-08T06:06:30Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
(2018/02/08 10:40), Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 6:01 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>  wrote:
>> The buildfarm's opinion of it is lower than yours.  Just eyeballing
>> the failures, I'd say there was some naivete about the reproducibility
>> of tuple CTIDs across different platforms.  Is there a good reason
>> these test cases need to print CTID?
>
> 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!

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

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.