Re: BUG #15352: postgresql FDW error "ERROR: ORDER BY position 0 isnot in select list"
От | Ashutosh Bapat |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #15352: postgresql FDW error "ERROR: ORDER BY position 0 isnot in select list" |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFjFpRcShdm5V_9Je4CzaRw31QhDW4s6VKzZ2m50JvKANL4jjw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #15352: postgresql FDW error "ERROR: ORDER BY position 0 is not in select list" (Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #15352: postgresql FDW error "ERROR: ORDER BY position 0 is not in select list"
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 7:53 PM, Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> wrote: >>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes: > > Andrew> It seems obviously wrong that a constant pathkey with no actual > Andrew> reference to the foreign table should be being pushed down, so > Andrew> so far I suspect that get_useful_pathkeys_for_relation isn't > Andrew> being selective enough about what is "useful". In this context > Andrew> I find it suspicious that find_em_expr_for_rel will return an > Andrew> expr with no vars as being "for" every rel, since it's just > Andrew> looking for a subset. Sorry for replying late. I am not able to understand why it's wrong to push a constant or for the matter any shippable expression which doesn't refer to the foreign table/s (for that matter any tables) under consideration down to the foreign server. The context in the original mail doesn't help. I haven't checked the original thread on bugs mailing list. I agree that ordering by such an expression is useless, but if we are getting that done from a foreign server, what's the harm? But by not doing it we might be loosing some optimization since postgres_fdw pushes all or none of pathkeys. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: