| From: | Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | KENAN YILMAZ <kenan(dot)yilmaz(at)localus(dot)com(dot)tr>, Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bypassing cursors in postgres_fdw to enable parallel plans |
| Date: | 2026-06-29 09:27:17 |
| Message-ID: | CA+FpmFfGVYtZqf=1bZFAqh7tA0dPNwcwk=om_mo8qfzrhKFSTw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 at 21:42, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 5:38 AM Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > I understand your concern and I tried to solve it by passing fsstate
> now, also saving a backpointer to the node in active_fsstate to solve the
> issue with make_tuple_from_result_row. Since we need to have conn from
> fsstate, I am not sure how we can do that if we have only active_fsstate
> passed to the function.
>
> If fsstate->conn and active_fsstate->conn can be different, I think we
> have a big problem. The idea of save_to_tuplestore() is that there's a
> query running on the connection already and we have to finish reading
> its results before we can use the connection for something else. But
> that only makes sense if it's the SAME connection in both cases. If
> we're running a connection on connection A, there's no reason we need
> to do anything before sending a new query on connection B.
>
> So, do you suggest we can have a backpointer of conn also in
active_fsstate...?
> --
> Robert Haas
> EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
--
Regards,
Rafia Sabih
CYBERTEC PostgreSQL International GmbH
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Naylor | 2026-06-29 09:35:39 | Re: vectorized CRC on ARM64 |
| Previous Message | Jingtang Zhang | 2026-06-29 09:25:58 | Fix FSM range endpoint after relation extension |