|From:||Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|To:||Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
(2014/09/08 16:18), Albe Laurenz wrote:
> I wrote:
>> I gave it a spin and could not find any undesirable behaviour, and the
>> output of EXPLAIN ANALYZE looks like I'd expect.
Thank you for the review!
>> I noticed that you use the list length of fdw_private to check if
>> the UPDATE or DELETE is pushed down to the remote server or not.
>> While this works fine, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have some
>> explicit flag in fdw_private for that purpose. Future modifications that
>> change the list length might easily overlook that it is used for this
>> purpose, thereby breaking the code.
>> Other than that it looks alright to me.
> Maybe I should have mentioned that I have set the patch to "Waiting for Author"
> because I'd like to hear your opinion on that, but I'm prepared to set it
> to "Ready for Committer" soon.
I agree with you on that point. So, I've updated the patch to have the
explicit flag, as you proposed. Attached is the updated version of the
patch. In this version, I've also revised code and its comments a bit.
Sorry for the delay.
|Next Message||Michael Paquier||2014-09-08 11:50:28||Re: pg_receivexlog and replication slots|
|Previous Message||Mitsumasa KONDO||2014-09-08 10:24:56||Re: add modulo (%) operator to pgbench|