From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Foreign Join pushdowns not working properly for outer joins |
Date: | 2017-04-26 04:56:48 |
Message-ID: | CAFjFpRfSJjN-sZ-j-3wGo8cTgu5x3h_7DfxHYwm8W6WqJLexAA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 4/24/17 22:50, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 4/14/17 00:24, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> This looks better. Here are patches for master and 9.6.
>>> Since join pushdown was supported in 9.6 the patch should be
>>> backported to 9.6 as well. Attached is the patch (_96) for 9.6,
>>> created by rebasing on 9.6 branch and removing conflict. _v6 is
>>> applicable on master.
>>
>> Committed to PG10. I'll work on backpatching next.
>
> For backpatching to 9.6, I came up with the attached reduced version.
> Since we don't have add_foreign_grouping_paths() in 9.6, we can omit the
> refactoring and keep the changes much simpler. Does that make sense?
Looks good to me.
There's minor complaint. In case we change the option related
functions in master because of a bug, backpatching those changes to
9.6 may not be straightforward. There's very less chance that we will
require to change those functions, so may be we can take that
theoretical risk.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-04-26 05:09:40 | Re: Adding support for Default partition in partitioning |
Previous Message | Abbas Butt | 2017-04-26 04:43:40 | Re: PG_TRY & PG_CATCH in FDW development |