Re: Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw

From: Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw
Date: 2016-09-08 10:55:03
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2016/09/07 13:21, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> * with the patch:
> postgres=# explain verbose delete from ft1 using ft2 where ft1.a =
> ft2.a;
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Delete on public.ft1 (cost=100.00..102.04 rows=1 width=38)
> -> Foreign Delete (cost=100.00..102.04 rows=1 width=38)
> Remote SQL: DELETE FROM public.t1 r1 USING (SELECT ROW(a,
> b), a FROM public.t2) ss1(c1, c2) WHERE ((r1.a = ss1.c2))
> (3 rows)

> The underlying scan on t2 requires ROW(a,b) for locking the row for
> update/share. But clearly it's not required if the full query is being
> pushed down.


> Is there a way we can detect that ROW(a,b) is useless
> column (not used anywhere in the other parts of the query like
> RETURNING, DELETE clause etc.) and eliminate it?

I don't have a clear solution for that yet, but I'll try to remove that
in the next version.

> Similarly for a, it's
> part of the targetlist of the underlying scan so that the WHERE clause
> can be applied on it. But it's not needed if we are pushing down the
> query. If we eliminate the targetlist of the query, we could construct a
> remote query without having subquery in it, making it more readable.

Will try to do so also.

Thanks for the comments!

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2016-09-08 11:04:27 Re: High-CPU consumption on information_schema (only) query
Previous Message Etsuro Fujita 2016-09-08 10:51:00 Re: Push down more full joins in postgres_fdw