| From: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs (Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API) |
| Date: | 2015-03-17 07:41:47 |
| Message-ID: | 5507DABB.60600@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015/03/14 7:18, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think the foreign data wrapper join pushdown case, which also aims
> to substitute a scan for a join, is interesting to think about, even
> though it's likely to be handled by a new FDW method instead of via
> the hook. Where should the FDW method get called from?
I haven't had enough time to review the patch in details yet, so I don't
know where we should call the method, but I'd vote for the idea of
substituting a scan for a join, because I think that idea would probably
allow update pushdown, which I'm proposing in the current CF, to scale
up to handling a pushed-down update on a join.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2015-03-17 07:44:29 | Re: Future directions for inheritance-hierarchy statistics |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2015-03-17 06:26:18 | Re: assessing parallel-safety |