From: | David Beck <dbeck(at)starschema(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: New hook after raw parsing, before analyze |
Date: | 2014-02-14 21:16:12 |
Message-ID: | A061B38D-2581-43C8-9385-A7950A71E46B@starschema.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I think I’m gonna need to dig into the planner to fully understand your points. Thank you for the insights. I was more into putting the knowledge of the legacy system into the an extension and my codebase. Now I see better use of the planner would help. Thank you.
What inspired me is the scriptable query rewrite in http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql-proxy/
The hook I proposed would be a lot nicer in Postgres because the raw parsing is already done at this point while in mysql-proxy that has to be done manually.
Another point I liked in mysql is the possibility to write info schema plugins: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/writing-information-schema-plugins.html
Like a virtual catalog. Is there anything similar in Postgres?
Thank you, David
2014.02.14. dátummal, 18:06 időpontban Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> írta:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:28 PM, David Beck <dbeck(at)starschema(dot)net> wrote:
>> Why is that a bad idea of rewriting the query before it reaches transform/analyze (without ever accessing the catalog)?
>>
>> If that flexibility is acceptable to you, where would be the best place to put it in?
>
> Well if there are two foreign tables and the planner could push the
> join work down to the fdw then the planner should be able to
> accurately represent that plan and cost it without having the user
> have to create any catalog structures. That's what the planner does
> for every other type of plan node.
>
> What you're describing would still be useful for materialized views.
> In that case the user is creating the materialized view and it is a
> real thing in the catalogs that won't disappear on the planner. Even
> then it would be ideal if the planner could decide to use the
> materialized view late enough that it can actually determine if it's
> superior rather than rewriting the query before it gets to that point.
> That would be much more flexible for users too who might not write the
> query in a way that exactly matches the materialized view.
>
> --
> greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-02-14 21:32:27 | Re: Per table autovacuum vacuum cost limit behaviour strange |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2014-02-14 20:46:01 | Re: Recovery inconsistencies, standby much larger than primary |