Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm unimpressed by this part --- we couldn't back-patch such a change, and
> I think it's unnecessary anyway in 9.6+ because the scan provider could
> generate a nondefault pathtarget if it wants this to happen.
You're right, of course. Thank you very much!
--
Dmitry Ivanov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company