|From:||Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|To:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>|
|Cc:||PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, 花田茂 <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2015/09/03 19:25, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On 2015/09/03 14:22, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> On 2015/09/03 9:41, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> That having been said, I don't entirely like Fujita-san's patch
>>> either. Much of the new code is called immediately adjacent to an FDW
>>> callback which could pretty trivially do the same thing itself, if
>> Another idea about that code is to call that code in eg, ExecProcNode,
>> instead of calling ExecForeignScan there. I think that that might be
>> much cleaner and resolve the naming problem below.
> I gave it another thought; the following changes to ExecInitNode would
> make the patch much simpler, ie, we would no longer need to call the new
> code in ExecInitForeignScan, ExecForeignScan, ExecEndForeignScan, and
> ExecReScanForeignScan. I think that would resolve the name problem also.
I'm attaching an updated version of the patch. The patch is based on
the SS_finalize_plan patch that has been recently committed. I'd be
happy if this helps people discuss more about how to fix this issue.
|Next Message||Anastasia Lubennikova||2015-09-04 11:28:29||Re: PATCH: index-only scans with partial indexes|
|Previous Message||Antonin Houska||2015-09-04 10:19:46||Non-volatile variables used for spinlock manipulation|