|From:||Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|To:||Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: postgres_fdw: Oddity in pushing down inherited UPDATE/DELETE joins to remote servers|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On 2018/05/10 21:41, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> I think the reason for that is: in that case we try to find the target
> foreign-join RelOptInfo using find_join_rel in postgresPlanDirectModify,
> but can't find it, because the given root is the *parent* root and
> doesn't have join RelOptInfos with it. To fix this, I'd like to propose
> to modify make_modifytable so that in case of an inherited
> UPDATE/DELETE, it passes to PlanDirectModify the per-child modified
> subroot, not the parent root, for the FDW to get the foreign-join
> RelOptInfo from the given root in PlanDirectModify. I think that that
> would be more consistent with the non-inherited UPDATE/DELETE case in
> that the FDW can look at any join RelOptInfos in the given root in
> PlanDirectModify, which I think would be a good thing because some FDWs
> might need to do that for some reason. For the same reason, I'd also
> like to propose to pass to PlanForeignModify the per-child modified
> subroot, not the parent root, as for PlanDirectModify. Attached is a
> proposed patch for that. I'll add this to the open items list for PG11.
So IIUC, we must pass the per-child PlannerInfo here, because that's what
would have been used for the planning join between the child (ft1 in your
example) and the other table (ft2 in your example). So that's where the
RelOptInfo's corresponding to planning for the child, including that for
the pushed-down join, would be stored.
Just to clarify, does this problem only arise because there is a pushed
down join involving the child? That is, does the problem only occur as of
the following commit:
Author: Robert Haas <rhaas(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Date: Wed Feb 7 15:34:30 2018 -0500
postgres_fdw: Push down UPDATE/DELETE joins to remote servers.
In other words, do we need to back-patch this up to 9.5 which added
foreign table inheritance?
Anyway, the patch and tests it adds look good.
|Next Message||Ashutosh Bapat||2018-05-11 07:17:55||Re: Expression errors with "FOR UPDATE" and postgres_fdw with partition wise join enabled.|
|Previous Message||Hubert Zhang||2018-05-11 07:01:56||Re: Considering signal handling in plpython again|