| From: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, 花田茂 <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual |
| Date: | 2015-08-26 07:46:42 |
| Message-ID: | 55DD6EE2.2070908@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015/08/26 16:07, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
I wrote:
>> Maybe I'm missing something, but why do we need such a flexiblity for
>> the columnar-stores?
> Even if we enforce them a new interface specification comfortable to RDBMS,
> we cannot guarantee it is also comfortable to other type of FDW drivers.
Specifically, what kind of points about the patch are specific to RDBMS?
> If module-X wants to implement the EPQ fallback routine by itself, without
> alternative plan, too rich interface design prevents what module-X really
> wants to do.
Sorry, I fail to see the need or advantage for module-X to do so, in
practice because I think EPQ testing is only execute a subplan for a
*single* set of component test tuples. Maybe I'm missing something, though.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-08-26 07:47:59 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-08-26 07:46:40 | Re: Join push-down support for foreign tables |