| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Fujii(dot)Yuki(at)df(dot)MitsubishiElectric(dot)co(dot)jp" <Fujii(dot)Yuki(at)df(dot)mitsubishielectric(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Pyhalov <a(dot)pyhalov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "Finnerty, Jim" <jfinnert(at)amazon(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Partial aggregates pushdown |
| Date: | 2024-03-21 22:01:00 |
| Message-ID: | ZfyuHBAA6eZO7cxq@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 11:37:50AM +0000, Fujii(dot)Yuki(at)df(dot)MitsubishiElectric(dot)co(dot)jp wrote:
> Hi. Mr.Momjian, Mr.Lane, Mr.Haas, hackers.
>
> I apologize for any misunderstanding regarding the context of the attached patch and
> the points on which I requested a review. Could you please allow me to clarify?
>
> In the review around early December 2023, I received the following three issues pointed out by Mr.Haas[1].
> 1. Transmitting state value safely between machines
> 2. Making the patch clearer by adding SQL keywords
> 3. Fixing the behavior when the HAVING clause is present
>
> In the email sent on February 22, 2024[2], I provided an update on the progress made in addressing these issues.
> Regarding issue 1, I have only provided a proposed solution in the email and have not started the programming.
> Therefore, the latest patch is not in a commit-ready state. As mentioned later, we have also temporarily reverted the changes made to the documentation.
> Before proceeding with the programming, I would like to discuss the proposed solution with the community and seek consensus.
> If it is necessary to have source code in order to discuss, I can create a simple prototype so that I can receive your feedback.
> Would you be able to provide your opinions on it?
>
> Regarding issue 2., I have confirmed that creating a prototype allows us to address the issue and clear the patch.
> In this prototype creation, the main purpose was to verify if the patch can be cleared and significant revisions were made to the previous version.
> Therefore, I have removed all the document differences.
> I have submitted a patch [3] that includes the fixes for issue 3. to the patch that was posted in [2].
> Regarding the proposed solution for issue 1, unlike the patch posted in [3],
> we have a policy of not performing partial aggregation pushdown if we cannot guarantee compatibility and safety.
> The latest patch in [3] is a POC patch. The patch that Mr. Momjian reviewed is this.
> If user-facing documentation is needed for this POC patch, it can be added.
>
> I apologize for the lack of explanation regarding this positioning, which may have caused misunderstandings regarding the patch posted in [3].
That makes sense. Let's get you answers to those questions first before
you continue.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Only you can decide what is important to you.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2024-03-21 22:05:39 | Re: Optimizing nbtree ScalarArrayOp execution, allowing multi-column ordered scans, skip scan |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-03-21 21:47:17 | Re: doc issues in event-trigger-matrix.html |