| 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 |
| Message-ID: | 1dfb254c-6a25-4bb8-e349-3eefb1f03e64@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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
| 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 |