From: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Push down more full joins in postgres_fdw |
Date: | 2016-09-28 09:20:05 |
Message-ID: | c73e2a65-b851-bd2c-e6b6-2a7d5f5fbdbf@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016/09/27 13:33, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
I wrote:
>>>>>> ISTM that the use of the same RTI for subqueries in multi-levels in a
>>>>>> remote
>>>>>> SQL makes the SQL a bit difficult to read. How about using the
>>>>>> position
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the join rel in join_rel_list, (more precisely, the position plus
>>>>>> list_length(root->parse->rtable)), instead?
I wrote:
>> The join rel is appended to the end of the list, so I was thinking to get
>> the position info by list_length during postgresGetForeignJoinPaths.
> That's true only when the paths are being added to a newly created
> joinrel. But that's not true always. We may add paths with different
> joining order to an existing joinrel, in which case list_length would
> not give its position. Am I missing something?
I think you are right, but postgresGetForeignJoinPaths only allows us to
add a foreign join path to a newly created joinrel. The reason is
because that routine skips all its work after the first call for that
joinrel, by checking to see if joinrel->fdw_private is not NULL. So, I
think it's reasonable to get the position by list_length in that routine.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2016-09-28 09:25:43 | Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-09-28 08:14:41 | Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. |