Re: Partial aggregates pushdown

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: "Fujii(dot)Yuki(at)df(dot)MitsubishiElectric(dot)co(dot)jp" <Fujii(dot)Yuki(at)df(dot)mitsubishielectric(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alexander Pyhalov <a(dot)pyhalov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Ilya Gladyshev <i(dot)gladyshev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: Partial aggregates pushdown
Date: 2023-04-14 06:54:23
Message-ID: ZDj4nwJANUU+kam8@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 10:56:26AM +0000, Fujii(dot)Yuki(at)df(dot)MitsubishiElectric(dot)co(dot)jp wrote:
> > Yes, good. Did we never push down aggregates before? I thought we
> > pushed down partitionwise aggregates already, and such a check should
> > already be done. If the check isn't there, it should be.
> Yes. The last version of this patch(and original postgres_fdw) checks if
> user-defined aggregate depends some extension which is contained in 'extensions'.
> But, in the last version of this patch, there is no such check for
> aggpartialfn of user-defined aggregate. So, I will add such check to this patch.
> I think that this modification is easy to do .

Good, so our existing code is correct and the patch just needs
adjustment.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

Embrace your flaws. They make you human, rather than perfect,
which you will never be.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2023-04-14 07:20:41 Re: Option to not use ringbuffer in VACUUM, using it in failsafe mode
Previous Message Julien Rouhaud 2023-04-14 06:12:48 Re: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node