Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW

From: Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW
Date: 2016-03-18 09:15:51
Message-ID: 56EBC747.6020804@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2016/03/10 2:56, Robert Haas wrote:
> I see that you went and changed all of the places that tested for !=
> CMD_SELECT and made them test for == CMD_INSERT || == CMD_UPDATE || ==
> CMD_DELETE instead. I think that's the wrong direction. I think that
> we should use the != CMD_SELECT version of the test everywhere.
> That's a single test instead of three, so marginally faster, and maybe
> marginally more future-proof.
>
> I think deparsePushedDownUpdateSql should be renamed to use the new
> "direct modify" naming, like deparseDirectUpdateSql, maybe.
>
> I would suggest not numbering the tests in postgresPlanDirectModify.
> That just becomes a nuisance to keep up to date as things change.

Agreed. I updated the patch to address these comments. Attached is the
updated version of the patch.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

Attachment Content-Type Size
fdw-dml-pushdown-v11.patch application/x-patch 93.7 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-03-18 09:52:22 Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794
Previous Message Dilip Kumar 2016-03-18 09:08:18 Re: Relation extension scalability