You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In CopyFrom(), currently we regard non-YB table as TEMP table.
However, this produces confusing message for FOREIGN table:
ts1|pid52548|:30139 2022-03-01 09:16:20.854 UTC [52764] WARNING: Batched COPY is not supported on temporary tables. Defaulting to using one transaction for the entire copy.
This revision checks the Relation type and uses proper table type in the message.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Summary:
In CopyFrom(), currently we regard non-YB table as TEMP table.
However, this produces confusing message for FOREIGN table:
```
ts1|pid52548|:30139 2022-03-01 09:16:20.854 UTC [52764] WARNING: Batched COPY is not supported on temporary tables. Defaulting to using one transaction for the entire copy.
```
This revision checks the Relation type and uses proper table type in the message.
Test Plan: ybd --java-test 'org.yb.pgsql.TestPgRegressContribPostgresFdw#schedule'
Reviewers: ena, myang
Reviewed By: myang
Subscribers: yql
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.dev.yugabyte.com/D15734
Summary:
In CopyFrom(), currently we regard non-YB table as TEMP table.
However, this produces confusing message for FOREIGN table:
```
ts1|pid52548|:30139 2022-03-01 09:16:20.854 UTC [52764] WARNING: Batched COPY is not supported on temporary tables. Defaulting to using one transaction for the entire copy.
```
This revision checks the Relation type and uses proper table type in the message.
Test Plan: ybd --java-test 'org.yb.pgsql.TestPgRegressContribPostgresFdw#schedule'
Reviewers: ena, myang
Reviewed By: myang
Subscribers: yql
Differential Revision: https://phabricator.dev.yugabyte.com/D15734
Description
In CopyFrom(), currently we regard non-YB table as TEMP table.
However, this produces confusing message for FOREIGN table:
This revision checks the Relation type and uses proper table type in the message.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: