From: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs) |
Date: | 2016-02-16 07:40:58 |
Message-ID: | 56C2D28A.6050009@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016/02/16 16:02, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Etsuro Fujita
> <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp <mailto:fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>> wrote:
> On 2016/02/16 15:22, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> During join planning, the planner tries multiple combinations of
> joining
> relations, thus the same base or join relation can be part of
> multiple
> of combination. Hence remote_conds or joinclauses will get linked
> multiple times as they are bidirectional lists, thus breaking
> linkages
> of previous join combinations tried. E.g. while planning A join
> B join C
> join D planner will come up with combinations like A(B(CD)) or
> (AB)(CD)
> or ((AB)C)D etc. and remote_conds from A will first be linked into
> A(B(CD)), then AB breaking the first linkages.
> Exactly, but I don't think that that needs to be considered because
> we have this at the beginning of postgresGetGForeignJoinPaths:
>
> /*
> * Skip if this join combination has been considered already.
> */
> if (joinrel->fdw_private)
> return;
> There will be different joinrels for A(B(CD)) and (AB) where A's
> remote_conds need to be pulled up.
Agreed.
> The check you have mentioned above
> only protects us from adding paths multiple times to (AB) when we
> encounter it for (AB)(CD) and ((AB)C)D.
Sorry, I don't understand this fully.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-02-16 07:59:43 | Re: Remove or weaken hints about "effective resolution of sleep delays is 10 ms"? |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-02-16 07:20:51 | Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions |