Re: postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs)

From: Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw join pushdown (was Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs)
Date: 2016-02-16 07:40:58
Message-ID: 56C2D28A.6050009@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2016/02/16 16:02, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Etsuro Fujita
> <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp <mailto:fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>> wrote:

> On 2016/02/16 15:22, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:

> During join planning, the planner tries multiple combinations of
> joining
> relations, thus the same base or join relation can be part of
> multiple
> of combination. Hence remote_conds or joinclauses will get linked
> multiple times as they are bidirectional lists, thus breaking
> linkages
> of previous join combinations tried. E.g. while planning A join
> B join C
> join D planner will come up with combinations like A(B(CD)) or
> (AB)(CD)
> or ((AB)C)D etc. and remote_conds from A will first be linked into
> A(B(CD)), then AB breaking the first linkages.

> Exactly, but I don't think that that needs to be considered because
> we have this at the beginning of postgresGetGForeignJoinPaths:
>
> /*
> * Skip if this join combination has been considered already.
> */
> if (joinrel->fdw_private)
> return;

> There will be different joinrels for A(B(CD)) and (AB) where A's
> remote_conds need to be pulled up.

Agreed.

> The check you have mentioned above
> only protects us from adding paths multiple times to (AB) when we
> encounter it for (AB)(CD) and ((AB)C)D.

Sorry, I don't understand this fully.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2016-02-16 07:59:43 Re: Remove or weaken hints about "effective resolution of sleep delays is 10 ms"?
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2016-02-16 07:20:51 Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions