On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:07 AM Amit Langote wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 3:39 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Amit Langote writes:
> > > I noticed that 428b260f87e8 (v12) broke the cases where a parent
> > > foreign table has row marks assigned.
> >
> > Indeed :-(. Fix pushed. I tweaked the com
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 3:39 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amit Langote writes:
> > I noticed that 428b260f87e8 (v12) broke the cases where a parent
> > foreign table has row marks assigned.
>
> Indeed :-(. Fix pushed. I tweaked the comments and test case slightly.
Thank you.
--
Amit Langote
EDB: ht
Amit Langote writes:
> I noticed that 428b260f87e8 (v12) broke the cases where a parent
> foreign table has row marks assigned.
Indeed :-(. Fix pushed. I tweaked the comments and test case slightly.
regards, tom lane
I noticed that 428b260f87e8 (v12) broke the cases where a parent
foreign table has row marks assigned. Specifically, the following
Assert added to expand_inherited_rtentry() by that commit looks bogus
in this regard:
/* The old PlanRowMark should already have necessitated adding TID */
Assert(old