Re: use_remote_estimate usage for join pushdown in postgres_fdw

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: use_remote_estimate usage for join pushdown in postgres_fdw
Date: 2015-12-16 18:11:32
Message-ID: 24499.1450289492@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I like option #2. I don't really have a strong reason for that, but
> it feels intuitive to me that we err on the side of using remote
> estimates when in doubt.

If we believe that, why isn't the default value of use_remote_estimate true?
(Maybe it should be.)

Another option that should be considered is that joins should pay
attention only to the server-level setting and not to the individual
tables' settings. This would surely be cheaper to implement, and
it avoids any questions about whether to OR or AND the individual
settings.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-12-16 18:14:36 Re: Tab-comletion for RLS
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2015-12-16 18:11:10 Re: checkpointer continuous flushing