Re: Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>
Cc: Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual
Date: 2015-11-06 12:39:57
Message-ID: CA+TgmoY5Lf+vYy1Bha=U7__S3qtMQP7d+gSSfd+LN4Xz6Fybkg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> wrote:
> A challenge is that junk wholerow references on behalf of ROW_MARK_COPY
> are injected by preprocess_targetlist(). It is earlier than the main path
> consideration by query_planner(), thus, it is not predictable how remote
> query shall be executed at this point.

Oh, dear. That seems like a rather serious problem for my approach.

> If ROW_MARK_COPY, base tuple image is fetched using this junk attribute.
> So, here is two options if we allow to put joined tuple on either of
> es_epqTuple[].

Neither of these sounds viable to me.

I'm inclined to go back to something like what you proposed here:

http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9A28C8860F777E439AA12E8AEA7694F80114B89D@BPXM15GP.gisp.nec.co.jp

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kouhei Kaigai 2015-11-06 14:42:12 Re: Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual
Previous Message Ildus Kurbangaliev 2015-11-06 11:27:26 Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches