Re: Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

From: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join
Date: 2015-12-23 04:53:36
Message-ID: CAFjFpRdOO+nqMMnTBR-dYD1Or2WiVEdpkbPtH=8-EQzyfe1hkA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thanks.

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> >> I went over this patch in some detail today and did a lot of cosmetic
> >> cleanup. The results are attached. I'm fairly happy with this
> >> version, but let me know what you think. Of course, feedback from
> >> others is more than welcome also.
> >>
> >
> > Attached patch with some cosmetic changes (listed here for your quick
> > reference)
> > 1. , was replaced with ; in comment "inner join, expressions in the " at
> one
> > place, which is correct, but missed other place.
> > 2. The comment "First, consider whether any each active EC is
> potentially"
> > should use either "any" or "each". I have reworded it as "First, consider
> > whether any of the active ECs is potentially ...". Or we can use "First,
> > find all of the active ECs which are potentially ....".
> > 3. "having the remote side due the sort generally won't be any worse
> ..." -
> > instead of "due" we should use "do"?
> > 4. Added static prototype of function get_useful_ecs_for_relation().
> > 5. The comment "Extract unique EC for query, if any, so we don't
> consider it
> > again." is too crisp. Phrase "Unique EC for query" is confusing; EC can
> not
> > be associated with a query per say and EC's are always unique because of
> > canonicalisation. May be we should reword it as "Extract single EC for
> > ordering of query, if any, so we don't consider it again." Is that
> cryptic
> > as well?
>
> Thanks. I committed this version with one small tweak.
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2015-12-23 05:06:43 Re: Add scale(numeric)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-12-23 03:25:03 Re: Possible marginally-incompatible change to array subscripting