(2014/12/12 11:19), Tom Lane wrote:
> Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes:
>> (2014/12/12 10:37), Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Yeah, this is clearly a thinko: really, nothing in the planner should
>>> be using get_parse_rowmark(). I looked around for other errors of the
>>> same type and found that postgresGetForeignPlan() is also using
>>> get_parse_rowmark(). While that's harmless at the moment because we
>>> don't support foreign tables as children, it's still wrong. Will
>>> fix that too.
>
>> I don't think we need to fix that too. In order to support that, I'm
>> proposing to modify postgresGetForeignPlan() in the following way [1]
>> (see fdw-inh-5.patch).
>
> My goodness, that's ugly. And it's still wrong, because this is planner
> code so it shouldn't be using get_parse_rowmark at all. The whole point
> here is that the rowmark info has been transformed into something
> appropriate for the planner to use. While that transformation is
> relatively trivial today, it might not always be so.
OK, I'll update the inheritance patch on top of the revison you'll make.
Thanks,
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
