Re: TRUNCATE on foreign table

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
To: Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)heterodb(dot)com>
Cc: Kazutaka Onishi <onishi(at)heterodb(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: TRUNCATE on foreign table
Date: 2021-04-08 13:14:17
Message-ID: 551ed8c1-f531-818b-664a-2cecdab99cd8@oss.nttdata.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2021/04/08 22:02, Kohei KaiGai wrote:
>> Anyway, attached is the updated version of the patch. This is still based on the latest Kazutaka-san's patch. That is, extra list for ONLY is still passed to FDW. What about committing this version at first? Then we can continue the discussion and change the behavior later if necessary.

Pushed! Thank all involved in this development!!
For record, I attached the final patch I committed.

> Ok, it's fair enought for me.
>
> I'll try to sort out my thought, then raise a follow-up discussion if necessary.

Thanks!

The followings are the open items and discussion points that I'm thinking of.

1. Currently the extra information (TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_NORMAL, TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_ONLY or TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_CASCADING) about how a foreign table was specified as the target to truncate in TRUNCATE command is collected and passed to FDW. Does this really need to be passed to FDW? Seems Stephen, Michael and I think that's necessary. But Kaigai-san does not. I also think that TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_CASCADING can be removed because there seems no use case for that maybe.

2. Currently when the same foreign table is specified multiple times in the command, the extra information only for the foreign table found first is collected. For example, when "TRUNCATE ft, ONLY ft" is executed, TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_NORMAL is collected and _ONLY is ignored because "ft" is found first. Is this OK? Or we should collect all, e.g., both _NORMAL and _ONLY should be collected in that example? I think that the current approach (i.e., collect the extra info about table found first if the same table is specified multiple times) is good because even local tables are also treated the same way. But Kaigai-san does not.

3. Currently postgres_fdw specifies ONLY clause in TRUNCATE command that it constructs. That is, if the foreign table is specified with ONLY, postgres_fdw also issues the TRUNCATE command for the corresponding remote table with ONLY to the remote server. Then only root table is truncated in remote server side, and the tables inheriting that are not truncated. Is this behavior desirable? Seems Michael and I think this behavior is OK. But Kaigai-san does not.

4. Tab-completion for TRUNCATE should be updated so that also foreign tables are displayed.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION

Attachment Content-Type Size
pgsql14-truncate-on-foreign-table.v18.patch text/plain 42.1 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2021-04-08 13:18:09 Re: pg_stat_statements oddity with track = all
Previous Message Kohei KaiGai 2021-04-08 13:02:08 Re: TRUNCATE on foreign table