| From: | Rajan Pandey <rajanpandey2508(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres_FDW doc doesn't specify TYPE support in Remote Execution Options |
| Date: | 2024-04-09 14:36:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAPr50MmFF3aBT-=KauNR9KwX_bkXpCqgj9RKxv5WVVvTKxLzpw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-general |
Hi team 😃.
In the
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/postgres-fdw.html#POSTGRES-FDW-OPTIONS-REMOTE-EXECUTION
doc, it
mentions that Immutable Functions and Hi can be pushed down using
`extensions` option for foreign server.
But it does not mention TYPE. In the shippable.c
<https://doxygen.postgresql.org/shippable_8c_source.html>/lookup_shippable()
function, I found a comment that indicates that type is also pushed down.
Hece, I have removed TYPE from the comments, assuming that it does not make
sense to push down a data type, and only functions and operations can be
pushed down. Please let me know if my assumption is incorrect. 🙂
I have added my patch file with the mail. Thanks!
On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 4:06 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-04-09 at 15:49 +0530, Rajan Pandey wrote:
> > I was reading
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/postgres-fdw.html#POSTGRES-FDW-OPTIONS-REMOTE-EXECUTION
> > and found that it mentions that Immutable Functions and Operators can
> > be pushed down using `extensions` option for foreign server.
> >
> > But it does not mention about TYPE. In the shippable.c/lookup_shippable()
> > function, I found that type is also pushed down.
>
> The comment only says that data types may be shippable, but not that
> they are actually shipped. Can you think of a case where a data type
> would be shipped to a foreign server? I wrote a foreign data wrapper,
> and I cannot think of such a case.
>
> Perhaps the function comment should be adjusted by removing the parenthesis
> or changing it to "(operator/function/...)".
>
> > Does this require updating the docs? Can I raise a PR to do so? Thank
> you! :)
>
> You would send a patch against the "master" branch to the pgsql-docs list
> for that.
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
>
--
Regards
Rajan Pandey
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| update_lookup_shippable_comments.patch | application/octet-stream | 503Â bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-04-09 16:33:59 | Re: psql option |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-09 14:26:27 | Re: 8.14.5 jsonb subscripting |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sebastien Flaesch | 2024-04-09 14:44:18 | Re: prepared statement "cu1" already exists (but it does not) |
| Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2024-04-09 14:28:53 | Re: Regarding: Replication of TRUNCATE commands is not working |