Re: How can I pushdown of functions used in targetlist with FDW ?
От | hirose shigeo(廣瀬 繁雄 ○SWC□OST) |
---|---|
Тема | Re: How can I pushdown of functions used in targetlist with FDW ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 202001101210.00ACARXV006652@toshiba.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: How can I pushdown of functions used in targetlist with FDW ? (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
Thank you for informations I didn't know "CREATE ROUTINE MAPPING" thread. In my development, it may be necessary to push down features, whether they are remote only or remote and local. Now I understand community concerns about function pushdown. I will investigate more and if needed I will create new design and post to hackers. Regards, Shigeo Hirose On 2020/01/10 12:24, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > At Thu, 09 Jan 2020 20:25:20 -0500, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in >> Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> writes: >>> Isn't ROUTING MAPPING [1] that? Definers should define one at their >>> own risk as table constraints are. >> >> Hmm. It looks like that patch is moribund, and I can't say that I'm >> excited about reviving it. Aside from the syntactical reserved-word >> problems, it seems like a mighty heavyweight way of attacking the issue > > I don't mean that the patch itself is usable right now, but am simply > asking about the feature. > >> --- that is, instead of a property directly attached to the function of >> interest, you've now got this entire other system catalog structure that >> has to be searched for relevant information. And that needs all the usual >> support for a new object type, eg ALTER infrastructure, pg_dump support, >> etc etc etc. > > Yeah, that sounds really combersome to me.. > >> Plus, once you've created a mapping, it's only good for one server so you >> have to do it over again for each server. I guess in the general case >> you have to have that, but I'd sure want some kind of shortcut for the >> common case where e.g. ABS() means the same thing everywhere. > > As for the user side, I understand that they want to push down certain > functions despite of the troubles, but it's better if simpler. > > About the idea of function attrributes, I think push-down'ability is > not one of function's properties. postgres_fdw can push down many > intrinsic functions. oracle_fdw can push down less functions. file_fdw > cannot at all. So it doesn't seem rather an ability of FDW drivers. > Putting aside the maintenance trouble, it would work for intrinsic > functions. > > Even with the feature, we still cannot push down user-defined > functions, or incompatible intrinsic functions, which the user wants > to push down knowing about the incompatibility. If we allow that, we > need to have a means to tell foreign servers about such functions. A > means other than ROUTINE MAPPING I can come up with is server options > and foreign table options. > >> The SQL committee do love verbosity, don't they. > > Sure.. > > regards. >
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: