| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "Andrey V(dot) Lepikhov" <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: POC: postgres_fdw insert batching |
| Date: | 2021-01-21 01:11:32 |
| Message-ID: | 4fd4ce5f-d940-065d-6476-db84163fb14e@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/21/21 2:02 AM, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> Hi, Tomas:
> In my opinion, my patch is a little better.
> Suppose one of the conditions in the if block changes in between the
> start of loop and the end of the loop:
>
> * Determine if the FDW supports batch insert and determine the batch
> * size (a FDW may support batching, but it may be disabled for the
> * server/table).
>
> My patch would reflect that change. I guess this was the reason the if /
> else block was placed there in the first place.
>
But can it change? All the loop does is extracting junk attributes from
the plans, it does not modify anything related to the batching. Or maybe
I just don't understand what you mean.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zhihong Yu | 2021-01-21 01:16:43 | Re: POC: postgres_fdw insert batching |
| Previous Message | Greg Nancarrow | 2021-01-21 01:05:44 | Re: Parallel INSERT (INTO ... SELECT ...) |