Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> It would be better if we invent an FDW callback that's meant to be
>> invoked at this stage, but only call it for FDW(s) actively involved
>> in the query. I'm not sure exactly what that ought to look like though.
>> Maybe only call the FDW identified as possible owner of the topmost
>> scan/join relation?

> I think in the short term that's as well as we're going to do, so +1.
> In the long run, I'm interested in making FDWs be able to optimize
> queries like foreigntab JOIN localtab ON foreigntab.x = localtab.x
> (e.g. by copying localtab to the remote side when it's small); but
> that will require revisiting some old decisions, too.

Yeah. An alternative definition that would support that would be to
call the upper-path-providing callback for each FDW that's responsible
for any base relation of the query. But I think that that would often
lead to a lot of redundant/wasted computation, and it's not clear to
me that we can support such cases without other changes as well.

regards, tom lane