On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 02:44:25PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Pushed. I left that argument alone. I think we can change it later, if
> necessary :).
Sure, that's fine as well. Thanks for committing the patch.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
(2019/01/16 20:30), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2019/01/16 15:54), Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 02:59:15PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
If there are no objections, I'll commit that version of the patch.
I think that you could use PgFdwModifyState for the second argument of
execute_
Michael-san,
(2019/01/16 15:54), Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 02:59:15PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2019/01/07 20:26), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
On second thought I'd like to propose another option:
execute_foreign_modify because I think this would match the existing
helper func
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 02:59:15PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2019/01/07 20:26), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> On second thought I'd like to propose another option:
>> execute_foreign_modify because I think this would match the existing
>> helper functions for updating foreign tables in postgres_fdw.
(2019/01/07 20:26), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2018/11/30 19:55), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
One thing we would need to discuss more about this is the name of a new
function added by the patch. IIRC, we have three options so far [1]:
1) perform_one_foreign_dml proposed by Ashutosh
2) execute_dml_single_ro
(2018/11/30 19:55), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
One thing we would need to discuss more about this is the name of a new
function added by the patch. IIRC, we have three options so far [1]:
1) perform_one_foreign_dml proposed by Ashutosh
2) execute_dml_single_row proposed by Michael
3) execute_parameter
(2018/11/30 2:58), Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:55 PM Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
(2018/10/01 19:42), Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 02:17:38PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
Fujita-san, you are registered as a reviewer of this patch. Are you
planning to look at it so
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:55 PM Etsuro Fujita
> wrote:
>
> (2018/10/01 19:42), Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 02:17:38PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> > Fujita-san, you are registered as a reviewer of this patch. Are you
> > planning to look at it soon?
>
> Yeah, I'm planni
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 01:50:46PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Sorry, I forgot to add the pointer for [1]:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFjFpRfcgwsHRmpvoOK-GUQi-n8MgAS%2BOxcQo%3DaBDn1COywmcg%40mail.gmail.com
OK, thanks for your update!
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP s
(2018/10/01 21:54), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2018/10/01 19:42), Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 02:17:38PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
I used perform instead of execute since the later is usually
associated with local operation. I added "foreign" in the name of the
function to indi
(2018/10/01 19:42), Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 02:17:38PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
I used perform instead of execute since the later is usually
associated with local operation. I added "foreign" in the name of the
function to indicate that it's executed on foreign server.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 02:17:38PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> I used perform instead of execute since the later is usually
> associated with local operation. I added "foreign" in the name of the
> function to indicate that it's executed on foreign server. I am happy
> with "remote" as well. I d
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> (2018/07/20 13:49), Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 05:35:11PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 for the general idea. (Actually, I also thought the same thing
>>> before.)
>>> But since this is definitely a matter
(2018/07/20 13:49), Michael Paquier wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 05:35:11PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
+1 for the general idea. (Actually, I also thought the same thing before.)
But since this is definitely a matter of PG12, ISTM that it's wise to work
on this after addressing the issue in [
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 05:35:11PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> +1 for the general idea. (Actually, I also thought the same thing before.)
> But since this is definitely a matter of PG12, ISTM that it's wise to work
> on this after addressing the issue in [1]. My concern is: if we do this
> refa
(2018/07/19 17:52), Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
+1 for the general idea. (Actually, I also thought the same thing before.)
But since this is definitely a matter of PG12, ISTM that it's wise to work
on this after addressing the issue in [1]. My
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> (2018/04/18 19:34), Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> While working on a fix related to non-direct DML [1], I noticed that
>> postgresExecForeignInsert(), postgresExecForeignUpdate() and
>> postgresExecForeignDelete() functions are almost id
(2018/04/18 19:34), Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
Hi,
While working on a fix related to non-direct DML [1], I noticed that
postgresExecForeignInsert(), postgresExecForeignUpdate() and
postgresExecForeignDelete() functions are almost identical except that
postgresExecForeignInsert() doesn't require ctid.
Hi,
While working on a fix related to non-direct DML [1], I noticed that
postgresExecForeignInsert(), postgresExecForeignUpdate() and
postgresExecForeignDelete() functions are almost identical except that
postgresExecForeignInsert() doesn't require ctid. The fix that I was
working is applicable to
19 matches
Mail list logo
