Re: Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw

From: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw
Date: 2016-11-16 04:10:10
Message-ID: CAFjFpReRgjtor3LimMpEwGkV=GEiL_uJp_f+CMcmmFLPBS23uA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> On 2016/11/15 19:04, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Fujita-san for working on this. I've signed up to review this
>> patch.
>
>
> Thank you for reviewing the patch!
>
>> Your latest patch doesn't not get apply cleanly apply on master branch.
>
>
> Did you apply the patch set in [1] (postgres-fdw-subquery-support-v4.patch
> and postgres-fdw-phv-pushdown-v4.patch in this order) before applying the
> latest patch?
>

I don't see any reason why DML/UPDATE pushdown should depend upon
subquery deparsing or least PHV patch. Combined together they can help
in more cases, but without those patches, we will be able to push-down
more stuff. Probably, we should just restrict push-down only for the
cases when above patches are not needed. That makes reviews easy. Once
those patches get committed, we may add more functionality depending
upon the status of this patch. Does that make sense?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mithun Cy 2016-11-16 04:31:54 Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level.
Previous Message Mark Kirkwood 2016-11-16 03:45:24 Re: WIP: About CMake v2