Re: FDW for PostgreSQL
| От | Shigeru HANADA |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: FDW for PostgreSQL |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 5098DD24.6070008@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: FDW for PostgreSQL (Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>) |
| Ответы |
Re: FDW for PostgreSQL
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Sorry for delayed response. On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote: > 2012/10/11 Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>: >> I've reviewed your patch quickly. I noticed that the patch has been created in >> a slightly different way from the guidelines: >> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/fdw-planning.html The guidelines >> say the following, but the patch identifies the clauses in >> baserel->baserestrictinfo in GetForeignRelSize, not GetForeignPaths. Also, it >> has been implemented so that most sub_expressions are evaluated at the remote >> end, not the local end, though I'm missing something. For postgresql_fdw to be >> a good reference for FDW developers, ISTM it would be better that it be >> consistent with the guidelines. I think it would be needed to update the >> following document or redesign the function to be consistent with the following >> document. >> > Hmm. It seems to me Fujita-san's comment is right. Indeed postgresql_fdw touches baserestrictinfo in GetForeignRelSize, but it's because of optimization for better width estimate. The doc Fujita-san pointed says that: > The actual identification of such a clause should happen during > GetForeignPaths, since it would affect the cost estimate for the > path. I understood this description says that "you need to touch baserestrict info *before* GetForeignPlan to estimate costs of optimized path". I don't feel that this description prohibits FDW to touch baserestrictinfo in GetForeignRelSize, but mentioning it clearly might be better. Regards, -- Shigeru HANADA
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: