| From: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, "Etsuro Fujita *EXTERN*" <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW |
| Date: | 2014-09-08 07:18:25 |
| Message-ID: | A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B17D33229@ntex2010i.host.magwien.gv.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> I gave it a spin and could not find any undesirable behaviour, and the
> output of EXPLAIN ANALYZE looks like I'd expect.
>
> I noticed that you use the list length of fdw_private to check if
> the UPDATE or DELETE is pushed down to the remote server or not.
>
> While this works fine, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have some
> explicit flag in fdw_private for that purpose. Future modifications that
> change the list length might easily overlook that it is used for this
> purpose, thereby breaking the code.
>
> Other than that it looks alright to me.
Maybe I should have mentioned that I have set the patch to "Waiting for Author"
because I'd like to hear your opinion on that, but I'm prepared to set it
to "Ready for Committer" soon.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2014-09-08 08:08:51 | Re: gist vacuum gist access |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-09-08 07:13:44 | Re: gist vacuum gist access |