Re: Back-branch bugs with fully-prunable UPDATEs

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

From: Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: 2019-04-08T03:02:15Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
(2019/04/07 16:54), Amit Langote wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 5:28 AM Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>  wrote:

>> This seems to be related to what Amit Langote complained of in
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/21e7eaa4-0d4d-20c2-a1f7-c7e96f4ce440@lab.ntt.co.jp
>> but since there's no foreign tables involved at all, either it's
>> a different bug or he misdiagnosed what he was seeing.
>
> I think that one is a different bug, but maybe I haven't looked closely enough.

I started working on that from last Friday (though I didn't work on the 
weekend).  I agree on Amit's reasoning stated in that post, and I think 
that that's my fault.  Sorry for the delay.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita




Commits

  1. Clean up side-effects of commits ab5fcf2b0 et al.

  2. Fix plan created for inherited UPDATE/DELETE with all tables excluded.