From: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
Cc: | Shigeru Hanada *EXTERN* <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW |
Date: | 2014-08-04 11:30:46 |
Message-ID: | 53DF6EE6.5090202@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
(2014/07/30 17:22), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2014/07/29 0:58), Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Albe Laurenz
>> <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> wrote:
>>> Shigeru Hanada wrote:
>>>> * Naming of new behavior
>>>> You named this optimization "Direct Update", but I'm not sure that
>>>> this is intuitive enough to express this behavior. I would like to
>>>> hear opinions of native speakers.
>>>
>>> How about "batch foreign update" or "batch foreign modification"?
>>> (Disclaimer: I'm not a native speaker either.)
>>
>> I think direct update sounds pretty good. "Batch" does not sound as
>> good to me, since it doesn't clearly describe what makes this patch
>> special as opposed to some other grouping of updates that happens to
>> produce a speedup.
>
> I agree with Robert on that point.
>
>> Another term that might be used is "update pushdown", since we are
>> pushing the whole update to the remote server instead of having the
>> local server participate. Without looking at the patch, I don't have
>> a strong opinion on whether that's better than "direct update" in this
>> context.
>
> "Update Pushdown" is fine with me.
>
> If there are no objections of others, I'll change the name from "Direct
> Update" to "Update Pushdown".
Done. (I've left deparseDirectUpdateSql/deparseDirectDeleteSql as-is,
though.)
Other changes:
* Address the comments from Eitoku-san.
* Add regression tests.
* Fix a bug, which fails to show the actual row counts in EXPLAIN
ANALYZE for UPDATE/DELETE without a RETURNING clause.
* Rebase to HEAD.
Please find attached an updated version of the patch.
Thanks,
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
postgres_fdw-update-v2.patch | text/x-diff | 44.8 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2014-08-04 11:50:13 | Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-08-04 10:58:04 | Re: How to manage shared library lifetime through C functions |