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
-
Clean up side-effects of commits ab5fcf2b0 et al.
- 67999b3547f7 10.8 landed
- 10e3991fad8a 11.3 landed
- 159970bcadbb 12.0 landed
-
Fix plan created for inherited UPDATE/DELETE with all tables excluded.
- 58947fbd56d1 10.8 cited