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
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 |