| From: | "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Tomas Vondra' <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Andrey V(dot) Lepikhov" <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: POC: postgres_fdw insert batching |
| Date: | 2021-01-14 01:14:45 |
| Message-ID: | TYAPR01MB2990893AD1D67A6267A2C380FEA80@TYAPR01MB2990.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
> FWIW the attached v8 patch does this - most of the conditions are moved to the
> GetModifyBatchSize() callback. I've removed the check for the BatchInsert
> callback, though - the FDW knows whether it supports that, and it seems a bit
> pointless at the moment as there are no other batch callbacks. Maybe we
> should add an Assert somewhere, though?
Thank you. I'm in favor this idea that the decision to support RETURNING and trigger is left to the FDW. I don' think of the need for another Assert, as the caller has one for the returned batch size.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hou, Zhijie | 2021-01-14 01:17:57 | RE: remove unneeded pstrdup in fetch_table_list |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2021-01-14 01:10:22 | Re: A failure of standby to follow timeline switch |