From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Odd system-column handling in postgres_fdw join pushdown patch |
Date: | 2016-03-18 19:51:28 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZRc+oy7zmNQCmqYHDYG2M4Y4zpHar3xj8E_fMotS0rRA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> BUT: we don't make any effort to ensure that local and remote values
> match, so system columns other than ctid and oid should not be retrieved
> from the remote server.
I agree.
> So, I'd like to propose: (1) when tableoids are
> requested from the remote server, postgres_fdw sets valid values for
> them locally, instead (core should support that?)
Sure.
> and (2) when any of
> xmins, xmaxs, cmins, and cmaxs are requested, postgres_fdw gives up
> pushing down foreign joins. (We might be able to set appropriate values
> for them locally the same way as for tableoids, but I'm not sure it's
> worth complicating the code.) I think that would be probably OK,
> because users wouldn't retrieve any such columns in practice.
Now that seems like the wrong reaction. I mean, aren't these just
going to be 0 or something? Refusing to push the join down seems
strange.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-18 19:53:16 | Re: FIX : teach expression walker about RestrictInfo |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-03-18 19:29:29 | Re: FIX : teach expression walker about RestrictInfo |