Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6
От | Etsuro Fujita |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | fab76fdb-23b5-e39c-6bc3-fbd9ee2542c4@lab.ntt.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6 (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017/01/19 12:26, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 6:22 AM, Etsuro Fujita >> <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >>> My biggest concern about GetExistingLocalJoinPath is that might not be >>> extendable to the case of foreign-join paths with parameterization; in which >>> case, fdw_outerpath for a given foreign-join path would need to have the >>> same parameterization as the foreign-join path, but there might not be any >>> existing paths with the same parameterization in the path list. >> I agree that this is a problem. > Effectively, it means that foreign join path creation will have a > parameterization different (per add_path()) from any local join > produced. But why would it be so? I think it's better to give the FDW a chance to do that because the FDW might have more knowledge about the parameterization for joinrels than core. > The parameterization bubbles up from > the base relation. The process for creating parameterized local and > foreign paths for a base relation is same. Thus we will have same > parameterizations considered for foreign as well as local joins. Those > different parameterizations will be retained add_path(), so we should > find one there Is that right? I think there would be cases where we can't find one because add_path removes paths dominated by others. Best regards, Etsuro Fujita
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: