Re: Odd system-column handling in postgres_fdw join pushdown patch
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Odd system-column handling in postgres_fdw join pushdown patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYDVy5JwWKjZ3yACXSLv1hmNhd3m2P94Bi9OnOxQQ66HQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Odd system-column handling in postgres_fdw join pushdown patch (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Odd system-column handling in postgres_fdw join
pushdown patch
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > I tend to favor zeroes rather than NULLs, because that's what we > typically use to represent an invalid value of those types, and I'm > not aware of any current case where those values are NULL. Actually, come to think of it, what we *really* need to do here is make sure that the behavior in the join-pushdown case matches the behavior in the join-not-pushed-down case. CREATE EXTENSION postgres_fdw; CREATE SERVER s1 FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER postgres_fdw; CREATE USER MAPPING FOR public SERVER s1; CREATE TABLE t1 (a integer, b text); CREATE FOREIGN TABLE ft1 (a integer, b text) SERVER s1 OPTIONS (table_name 't1'); INSERT INTO t1 VALUES (1, 'foo'), (2, 'bar'), (3, 'baz'), (4, 'quux'); Without join pushdown - this is what gets selected by default, sadly, so the costing isn't working as hoped in this case: rhaas=# select ft1.xmax, ft2.xmax, ft1.* from ft1, ft1 ft2 where ft1.a = ft2.a; xmax | xmax | a | b ------------+------------+---+------4294967295 | 4294967295 | 1 | foo4294967295 | 4294967295 | 2 | bar4294967295 | 4294967295| 3 | baz4294967295 | 4294967295 | 4 | quux (4 rows) With join pushdown, after disabling merge and hash joins: rhaas=# select ft1.xmax, ft2.xmax, ft1.* from ft1, ft1 ft2 where ft1.a = ft2.a;xmax | xmax | a | b ------+------+---+------ 0 | 0 | 1 | foo 0 | 0 | 2 | bar 0 | 0 | 3 | baz 0 | 0 | 4 | quux (4 rows) So, clearly that's not good. It should at least be consistent. But more than that, the fact that postgres_fdw sets the xmax to 0xffffffff is also pretty wacky. We might use such a value as a sentinel for some data type, but for transaction IDs that's just some random normal transaction ID, and it's NOT coming from t1. I haven't tracked down where it *is* coming from yet, but can't imagine it's any place very principled. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: