Re: Asynchronous Append on postgres_fdw nodes.

From: Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andrey Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Asynchronous Append on postgres_fdw nodes.
Date: 2021-05-07 16:05:47
Message-ID: CAPmGK14DF1=_B6zvqfh1rx1dWHLOTJgVkfr3g50MmcBQyHEjKw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 7:35 PM Andrey Lepikhov
<a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> On 6/5/21 14:11, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 3:57 PM Andrey V. Lepikhov
> > <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> >> One more question. Append choose async plans at the stage of the Append
> >> plan creation.
> >> Later, the planner performs some optimizations, such as eliminating
> >> trivial Subquery nodes. So, AsyncAppend is impossible in some
> >> situations, for example:
> >>
> >> (SELECT * FROM f1 WHERE a < 10)
> >> UNION ALL
> >> (SELECT * FROM f2 WHERE a < 10);

> >> We can choose async
> >> subplans at the beginning of the execution stage.
> >> For a demo, I prepared the patch (see in attachment).
> >> It solves the problem and passes the regression tests.
> >
> > IIUC, another approach to this would be the
> > patch you proposed before [1]. Right?
> Yes. I think, new solution will be better.

Ok, will review.

I think it would be better to start a new thread for this, and add the
patch to the next CF so that it doesn’t get lost.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Etsuro Fujita 2021-05-07 16:20:51 Inherited UPDATE/DELETE vs async execution
Previous Message Etsuro Fujita 2021-05-07 15:55:07 Re: Asynchronous Append on postgres_fdw nodes.