diff options
author | Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> | 2020-01-26 14:31:08 -0500 |
---|---|---|
committer | Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> | 2020-01-26 14:31:08 -0500 |
commit | 215824f9188a2b19f870e6a707c5a81e1ac3f1fc (patch) | |
tree | a73c3e88f8f5680acbf9700f7c9f9cef93c09cb7 /src/backend/utils/adt/jsonfuncs.c | |
parent | 38a957316d7e46d4b00de40f43966984a463d80a (diff) | |
download | postgresql-215824f9188a2b19f870e6a707c5a81e1ac3f1fc.tar.gz postgresql-215824f9188a2b19f870e6a707c5a81e1ac3f1fc.zip |
In postgres_fdw, don't try to ship MULTIEXPR updates to remote server.
In a statement like "UPDATE remote_tab SET (x,y) = (SELECT ...)",
we'd conclude that the statement could be directly executed remotely,
because the sub-SELECT is in a resjunk tlist item that's not examined
for shippability. Currently that ends up crashing if the sub-SELECT
contains any remote Vars. Prevent the crash by deeming MULTIEXEC
Params to be unshippable.
This is a bit of a brute-force solution, since if the sub-SELECT
*doesn't* contain any remote Vars, the current execution technology
would work; but that's not a terribly common use-case for this syntax,
I think. In any case, we generally don't try to ship sub-SELECTs, so
it won't surprise anybody that this doesn't end up as a remote direct
update. I'd be inclined to see if that general limitation can be fixed
before worrying about this case further.
Per report from Lukáš Sobotka.
Back-patch to 9.6. 9.5 had MULTIEXPR, but we didn't try to perform
remote direct updates then, so the case didn't arise anyway.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAJif3k+iA_ekBB5Zw2hDBaE1wtiQa4LH4_JUXrrMGwTrH0J01Q@mail.gmail.com
Diffstat (limited to 'src/backend/utils/adt/jsonfuncs.c')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions