Re: postgres_fdw bug in 9.6

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw bug in 9.6
Date: 2017-01-12 15:43:02
Message-ID: CA+Tgmob-VxZyzUndew2bbzi7_C_yAWk_5qCitQhwjRuwMnSEqw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> As I said before, that might be fine for 9.6, but I don't think it's a good
> idea to search the pathlist because once we support parameterized foreign
> join paths, which is on my TODOs, we would have to traverse through the
> possibly-lengthy pathlist to find a local-join path, as mentioned in [3].

I'm not sure that's really going to be a problem. The number of
possible parameterizations that need to be considered isn't usually
very big. I bet the path list will have ten or a few tens of entries
in it, not a hundred or a thousand. Traversing it isn't that
expensive.

That having been said, I haven't read the patches, so I'm not really
up to speed on the bigger issues here. But surely it's more important
to get the overall design right than to worry about the cost of
walking the pathlist or worrying about the cost of an extra function
call (?!).

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonathan Katz 2017-01-12 15:48:42 Re: Retiring from the Core Team
Previous Message Dave Cramer 2017-01-12 15:33:09 Re: Retiring from the Core Team