Re: postgres_fdw and skip locked

From: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alexander Pyhalov <a(dot)pyhalov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw and skip locked
Date: 2022-02-16 13:40:53
Message-ID: CAExHW5t1ua3yeKu8D04UZQzApMR4zYOi4AkkENygsqhmNaaMFA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 4:23 PM Alexander Pyhalov
<a(dot)pyhalov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> Now select ... for update ... [skip locked|nowait] options are not
> pushed down to remote servers. I see the only reason is that we can
> speak to pre-9.5 server, which doesn't understand skip locked option.
> Are there any other possible issues? Should we add foreign table option
> to control this behavior?

Should we always push these clauses if remote server's version is
newer than 9.5? There are quite a few options already. It will be good
not to add one more.

I see that these options will work for all kinds of relations. So no
problem if foreign table is pointing to something other than a table.

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2022-02-16 13:41:30 Re: some aspects of our qsort might not be ideal
Previous Message Robert Haas 2022-02-16 13:24:31 Re: pgsql: Move scanint8() to numutils.c