Re: Doc: Improve note about copying into postgres_fdw foreign tables in batch

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
To: Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrey Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: Doc: Improve note about copying into postgres_fdw foreign tables in batch
Date: 2023-03-22 12:13:01
Message-ID: 5F03FB5D-18CB-43A1-8AA2-3C8FEF567609@yesql.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 22 Mar 2023, at 12:58, Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 5:45 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Here is a small patch to improve the note, which was added by commit
>> 97da48246 ("Allow batch insertion during COPY into a foreign table."),
>> by adding an explanation about how the actual number of rows
>> postgres_fdw inserts at once is determined in the COPY case, including
>> a limitation that does not apply to the INSERT case.
>
> Does anyone want to comment on this?

Patch looks good to me, but I agree with Tatsuo downthread that "similar way to
the insert case" reads better. Theoretically the number could be different
from 1000 if MAX_BUFFERED_TUPLES was changed in the build, but that's a
non-default not worth spending time explaining.

+ the actual number of rows <filename>postgres_fdw</filename> copies at

While not the fault of this patch I find it confusing that we mix <filename>
and <literal> for marking up "postgres_fdw", the latter seemingly more correct
(and less commonly used) than <filename>.

--
Daniel Gustafsson

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Cramer 2023-03-22 12:14:57 Re: Request for comment on setting binary format output per session
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2023-03-22 12:08:53 Re: Doc: Improve note about copying into postgres_fdw foreign tables in batch