From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Writable foreign tables: how to identify rows |
Date: | 2013-03-13 12:34:44 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobdfzdSaiczEc=Y4UbanTfTqQk4dDA8R3JZRDD8_G0LYw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> On the other hand, I don't have a problem with decreeing that
> non-Postgres FDWs need to use PK row identification in the first
> release; which would be the consequence if we don't do anything about
> allowing new system columns in 9.3. We will certainly need that style
> of row identification to be written and tested anyway. It won't stop
> us from extending things later.
Oh, I didn't realize that was how it was going to work out. That
seems very reasonable to me. There is a performance problem with
forcing DELETE FROM ft WHERE nonkey = 5 to be pushed to the remote
side as SELECT pk FROM ft WHERE nonkey = 5 followed by DELETE FROM ft
WHERE pk = $1 for each pk value returned by the SELECT, which sounds
like it's what will happen under this system. But I don't have any
problem leaving that as future work.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-03-13 12:39:41 | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review] |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2013-03-13 12:20:26 | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |