| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Denis Lussier <denis(dot)lussier(at)openscg(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Status of FDW pushdowns |
| Date: | 2013-11-21 15:17:47 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0wHzNUa5pfNzixow7vQmgfBiO+-SGFZEDv=jLV_xt9MVw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Where are we on the remaining possible pushdowns for foreign data
> wrappers, particularly the Postgres one? I know we do WHERE restriction
> pushdowns in 9.3, but what about join and aggregate pushdowns? Is
> anyone working on those?
>
> I know join pushdowns seem insignificant, but it helps to restrict what
> data must be passed back because you would only pass back joined rows.
By 'insignificant' you mean 'necessary to do any non-trivial real
work'. Personally, I'd prefer it if FDW was extended to allow
arbitrary parameterized queries like every other database connectivity
API ever made ever. But in lieu of that, I'll take as much push down
power as possible :-D.
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | J Smith | 2013-11-21 15:25:20 | Re: Data corruption issues using streaming replication on 9.0.14/9.2.5/9.3.1 |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2013-11-21 15:13:29 | Re: [PERFORM] Cpu usage 100% on slave. s_lock problem. |