| 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 10:39:18 |
| Message-ID: | 55DD9756.8080600@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015/08/26 18:01, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
>>> You may think execution of alternative plan is the best way for EPQ rechecks,
>>> however, other folks may think their own implementation is the best for EPQ
>>> rechecks. I never argue which approach is better.
>>> What I point out is freedom/flexibility of implementation choice.
Maybe my explanation was not accurate, but I just want to know use
cases, to understand the need to provide the flexiblity.
> The only and significant point I repeatedly emphasized is, it is developer's
> choice thus it is important to provide options for developers.
> If they want, FDW developer can follow the manner of alternative plan
> execution for EPQ rechecks. I never deny your idea, but should be one of
> the options we can take.
I don't object about your idea either, but I have a concern about that;
it looks like that the more flexiblity we provide, the more the FDWs
implementing their own EPQ would be subject to an internal change in the
core.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-08-26 10:40:37 | Re: Reducing ClogControlLock contention |
| Previous Message | Kouhei Kaigai | 2015-08-26 09:01:51 | Re: Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual |