Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6
От | Etsuro Fujita |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | c4d6d586-80cd-4328-7d92-0ea7a6b380d2@lab.ntt.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6 (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016/12/16 1:39, Tom Lane wrote: > Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes: >> On 2016/12/13 23:13, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >>> A possible short-term fix may be this: instead of picking any random >>> path to stick into fdw_outerpath, we choose a path which covers the >>> pathkeys of ForeignPath. >> Seems reasonable. > No, because GetExistingLocalJoinPath is called once per relation not once > per path. Even if we were willing to eat the overhead of calling it once > per path, we'd have to give up considering foreign paths with sort orders > that there wasn't any cheap way to produce locally. Hmm, I agree on that point that giving it up might result in a bad plan. As I said upthread, an alternative I am thinking is (1) to create an equivalent nestloop join path using inner/outer paths of a foreign join path, except when that join path implements a full join, in which case a merge/hash join path is used, (2) store it in fdw_outerpath as-is, and (3) during an EPQ recheck, apply postgresRecheckForeignScan to the outer subplan created from the fdw_outerpath as-is. What do you think about that? Best regards, Etsuro Fujita
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: