| From: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Etsuro Fujita *EXTERN*" <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW |
| Date: | 2014-09-02 13:41:32 |
| Message-ID: | A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B17D3135C@ntex2010i.host.magwien.gv.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> Please find attached the updated version of the patch.
I gave it a spin and could not find any undesirable behaviour, and the
output of EXPLAIN ANALYZE looks like I'd expect.
I noticed that you use the list length of fdw_private to check if
the UPDATE or DELETE is pushed down to the remote server or not.
While this works fine, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have some
explicit flag in fdw_private for that purpose. Future modifications that
change the list length might easily overlook that it is used for this
purpose, thereby breaking the code.
Other than that it looks alright to me.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-09-02 13:41:37 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-09-02 13:39:35 | Re: [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes |