| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: planstate_tree_walker oversight CustomScan |
| Date: | 2015-09-23 01:43:42 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZAPoagQzVRqhzS8oCB-2cFRK=_viBC0RXnVY+Nau_jgQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> wrote:
> The latest ExplainPreScanNode is sufficient. Regardless of scanrelid
> (even if it is zero), fs_relids and custom_relids shall be set properly
> to introduce which relations are represented by this ForeignScan and
> CustomScan node. So, additional planstate_tree_walker() call might be
> a bit redundant, but harmless.
>
> The reason why ForeignScan/CustomScan node have these bitmap is, we
> cannot guarantee they always have underlying scan node. For example,
> ForeignScan that kicks remote join query will not have local underlying
> scan node on the foreign tables to be involved.
> So, we had to inform ExplainPreScanNode which relids are represented
> by this Foreign/CustomScan node.
OK, I've just committed the patch the way it is for now, then.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-09-23 01:55:54 | Re: Less than ideal error reporting in pg_stat_statements |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-09-23 01:34:21 | Re: a funnel by any other name |