| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification |
| Date: | 2016-03-14 18:24:21 |
| Message-ID: | 7626.1457979861@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Yeah. An alternative definition that would support that would be to
>> call the upper-path-providing callback for each FDW that's responsible
>> for any base relation of the query. But I think that that would often
>> lead to a lot of redundant/wasted computation, and it's not clear to
>> me that we can support such cases without other changes as well.
> Sure, that's fine with me. Are you going to go make these changes now?
Yeah, in a bit.
> Eventually, we might just support a configurable flag on FDWs where
> FDWs that want to do this sort of thing can request callbacks on every
> join and every upper rel in the query. But that can wait.
That'd be a possibility, too.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-03-14 18:28:43 | Re: [PATCH] Use correct types and limits for PL/Perl SPI query results |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2016-03-14 18:16:26 | Re: dealing with extension dependencies that aren't quite 'e' |