Re: Oddity in handling of cached plans for FDW queries

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Oddity in handling of cached plans for FDW queries
Date: 2016-07-15 02:48:52
Message-ID: 2270.1468550932@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> One thing I'm not sure about is: should we insist that a join can be
> pushed down only if the checkAsUser fields of the relevant RTEs are
> equal in the case where user mappings are meaningless to the FDW, like
> file_fdw?

If we add a mechanism to let us know that the FDW doesn't care, we could
relax the requirement for such cases. I don't have a strong opinion on
whether that's worthwhile. It'd depend in part on how many FDWs there
are that don't care, versus those that do; and I have no idea about that.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2016-07-15 02:51:17 Re: trivia: cancel{,l}{ed,ing,ation}
Previous Message Etsuro Fujita 2016-07-15 02:37:51 Re: Oddity in handling of cached plans for FDW queries