Re: [idea] more aggressive join pushdown on postgres_fdw

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Shigeru HANADA <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [idea] more aggressive join pushdown on postgres_fdw
Date: 2015-06-08 17:18:58
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoa665CLwbVgRR=M9-PZCTtO+ckixPz+6JcZ+Mu82LoJaQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Shigeru HANADA <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 2015/06/05 6:43、Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> のメール:
>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> wrote:
>> Neat idea. This ties into something I've thought about and mentioned
>> before: what if the innerrel is local, but there's a replicated copy
>> on the remote server? Perhaps both cases are worth thinking about at
>> some point.
>
> Interesting, but I’m not sure that I understood the situation.
>
> Here which kind of replication method do you mean? I guess you assume some kind of per-table replication such as Slony-I or materialized views with postgres_fdw or dblink, in postgres_fdw case. If this assumption is correct, we need a mapping between a local ordinary table and a foreign table which points remote replicated table.

Right. I was thinking of BDR, in particular, or some future future
in-core feature which might be similar, but Slony could do the same
thing.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2015-06-08 17:23:32 Re: [GENERAL] 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2015-06-08 17:16:01 Re: [CORE] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule