From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
Cc: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual |
Date: | 2015-11-06 12:39:57 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY5Lf+vYy1Bha=U7__S3qtMQP7d+gSSfd+LN4Xz6Fybkg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> wrote:
> A challenge is that junk wholerow references on behalf of ROW_MARK_COPY
> are injected by preprocess_targetlist(). It is earlier than the main path
> consideration by query_planner(), thus, it is not predictable how remote
> query shall be executed at this point.
Oh, dear. That seems like a rather serious problem for my approach.
> If ROW_MARK_COPY, base tuple image is fetched using this junk attribute.
> So, here is two options if we allow to put joined tuple on either of
> es_epqTuple[].
Neither of these sounds viable to me.
I'm inclined to go back to something like what you proposed here:
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kouhei Kaigai | 2015-11-06 14:42:12 | Re: Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual |
Previous Message | Ildus Kurbangaliev | 2015-11-06 11:27:26 | Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches |