Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZRjnBfnoZbvobvRiyst5gUPrPOX0NTd0SkmYjb6ymvCQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW (Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>) |
Ответы |
Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres
FDW
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > On 2016/03/10 2:56, Robert Haas wrote: >> I see that you went and changed all of the places that tested for != >> CMD_SELECT and made them test for == CMD_INSERT || == CMD_UPDATE || == >> CMD_DELETE instead. I think that's the wrong direction. I think that >> we should use the != CMD_SELECT version of the test everywhere. >> That's a single test instead of three, so marginally faster, and maybe >> marginally more future-proof. >> >> I think deparsePushedDownUpdateSql should be renamed to use the new >> "direct modify" naming, like deparseDirectUpdateSql, maybe. >> >> I would suggest not numbering the tests in postgresPlanDirectModify. >> That just becomes a nuisance to keep up to date as things change. > > Agreed. I updated the patch to address these comments. Attached is the > updated version of the patch. Committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: