On 2016/05/31 14:53, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2016/05/30 22:59, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> On 30 May 2016 at 16:17, Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>>> That's a good point, but the basic idea is to send the local query
>>> almost-as-is to the remote server if possible. For example, if the local
>>> query is "INSERT INTO foreign_table(a,b,c) VALUES (1, 2, 3), (4, 5, 6)",
>>> send the remote query "INSERT INTO remote_table(a,b,c) VALUES (1, 2, 3),
>>> (4, 5, 6)" to the remote server where remote_table is the table name for
>>> the foreign table on the remote server. So, wouldn't the query string
>>> length be a problem in many cases? Maybe I'm missing something, though.
>>> <http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers>
>> FDWs don't operate at that level. They don't see the original query string.
>> They're plan nodes that operate with a row-by-row push/pull model. The
>> foreign table node in question has no idea you're doing a multivalued
>> insert and doesn't care if it's INSERT INTO ... SELECT, INSERT INTO ...
>> VALUES, or COPY.
> IIUC, what Fujita-san seems to be referring to here is safe push-down of a
> insert's query or values expression (and hence the whole insert itself)
> considered during the *planning* step.
That's really what I have in mind. Thanks for the explanation!
> Although that sounds like a
> different optimization from what's being discussed on this thread. The
> latter certainly seems to have its benefits in case of push-down failure
> and might as well be the majority of cases.
Agreed.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita