Re: [idea] more aggressive join pushdown on postgres_fdw

From: Shigeru HANADA <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [idea] more aggressive join pushdown on postgres_fdw
Date: 2015-06-05 09:51:53
Message-ID: C785556F-AC03-40DC-B000-8BB8AA1C414F@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


2015/06/05 6:43、Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> のメール:
> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> wrote:
> Neat idea. This ties into something I've thought about and mentioned
> before: what if the innerrel is local, but there's a replicated copy
> on the remote server? Perhaps both cases are worth thinking about at
> some point.

Interesting, but I’m not sure that I understood the situation.

Here which kind of replication method do you mean? I guess you assume some kind of per-table replication such as Slony-I or materialized views with postgres_fdw or dblink, in postgres_fdw case. If this assumption is correct, we need a mapping between a local ordinary table and a foreign table which points remote replicated table.

--
Shigeru HANADA
shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-06-05 10:02:01 Re: Multixid hindsight design
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2015-06-05 09:45:09 Re: Multixid hindsight design