Re: Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw

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: Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw
Date: 2016-11-16 07:38:44
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2016/11/16 13:10, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Etsuro Fujita
> <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> On 2016/11/15 19:04, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
>>> Your latest patch doesn't not get apply cleanly apply on master branch.

>> Did you apply the patch set in [1] (postgres-fdw-subquery-support-v4.patch
>> and postgres-fdw-phv-pushdown-v4.patch in this order) before applying the
>> latest patch?

> I don't see any reason why DML/UPDATE pushdown should depend upon
> subquery deparsing or least PHV patch. Combined together they can help
> in more cases, but without those patches, we will be able to push-down
> more stuff. Probably, we should just restrict push-down only for the
> cases when above patches are not needed. That makes reviews easy. Once
> those patches get committed, we may add more functionality depending
> upon the status of this patch. Does that make sense?

OK, I'll extract from the patch the minimal part that wouldn't depend on
the two patches.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Borodin 2016-11-16 07:46:50 Re: Fractal tree indexing
Previous Message Noah Misch 2016-11-16 07:32:43 Re: Document how to set up TAP tests for Perl 5.8.8