| From: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Push down more full joins in postgres_fdw |
| Date: | 2016-09-26 07:35:17 |
| Message-ID: | 7075a772-485c-301d-82cd-caaca2746bb1@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016/09/15 15:29, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure why it wouldn't work
>> to just use the lowest RTI involved in the join, though; the others
>> won't appear anywhere else at that query level.
> So +1 for
> using the smallest RTI to indicate a subquery.
+1 for the general idea.
ISTM that the use of the same RTI for subqueries in multi-levels in a
remote SQL makes the SQL a bit difficult to read. How about using the
position of the join rel in join_rel_list, (more precisely, the position
plus list_length(root->parse->rtable)), instead?
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2016-09-26 07:37:51 | Re: Odd system-column handling in postgres_fdw join pushdown patch |
| Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2016-09-26 07:30:22 | Re: Push down more full joins in postgres_fdw |