Re: review: FDW API
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: review: FDW API |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4D5ED6D0.1080906@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: review: FDW API (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: review: FDW API
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 18.02.2011 22:16, Tom Lane wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> Another version, rebased against master branch and with a bunch of small >> cosmetic fixes. > >> I guess this is as good as this is going to get for 9.1. > > This is *badly* in need of another cleanup pass; it's full of typos, > contradictory comments, #ifdef NOT_USED stuff, etc etc. And the > documentation is really inadequate. If you're out of energy to go > over it, I guess I should step up. If you have the energy, by all means, thanks. > Question after first look: what is the motivation for passing > estate->es_param_list_info to BeginScan? AFAICS, even if there is a > reason for that function to need that, it isn't receiving any info that > would be sufficient to let it know what's in there. The idea is that when the query is planned, the FDW can choose to push down a qual that contains a parameter marker, like "WHERE remotecol = $1". At execution time, it needs the value of the parameter to send it to the remote server. The PostgreSQL FDW does that, although I didn't test it so it might well be broken. > What seems more > likely to be useful is to pass in the EState pointer, as for example > being able to look at es_query_cxt seems like a good idea. By "look at", you mean allocate stuff in it? -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: