From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs) |
Date: | 2015-12-10 22:11:43 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaWaJSYtuuvfTuZedB=f7S6uBKgDQHPdZiYGHdUw4_8iw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> It's been a long time since last patch on this thread was posted. I have
> started
> to work on supporting join pushdown for postgres_fdw. Attached please find
> three
> patches
> 1. pg_fdw_core.patch: changes in core related to user mapping handling, GUC
> enable_foreignjoin
> 2. pg_fdw_join.patch: postgres_fdw changes for supporting join pushdown
It seems useful to break things up this way. However, I'm not sure we
want an enable_foreignjoin GUC; in fact, I think we probably don't.
If we want to have a way to control this, postgres_fdw can provide a
custom GUC or FDW option for that.
And to be honest, I haven't really been able to understand why join
pushdown needs changes to user mapping handling. Just hypothetically
speaking, if I put my foot down and said we're not committing any of
that stuff, how and why would that impact our ability to have join
pushdown in 9.6?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-12-10 22:13:12 | Re: Cluster "stuck" in "not accepting commands to avoid wraparound data loss" |
Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-12-10 22:02:49 | Remove array_nulls? |