Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW

(2014/07/29 0:58), Robert Haas wrote:

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at> wrote:

Shigeru Hanada wrote:

* Naming of new behavior
You named this optimization "Direct Update", but I'm not sure that
this is intuitive enough to express this behavior.  I would like to
hear opinions of native speakers.

How about "batch foreign update" or "batch foreign modification"?
(Disclaimer: I'm not a native speaker either.)

I think direct update sounds pretty good.  "Batch" does not sound as
good to me, since it doesn't clearly describe what makes this patch
special as opposed to some other grouping of updates that happens to
produce a speedup.

I agree with Robert on that point.

Another term that might be used is "update pushdown", since we are
pushing the whole update to the remote server instead of having the
local server participate.  Without looking at the patch, I don't have
a strong opinion on whether that's better than "direct update" in this
context.

"Update Pushdown" is fine with me.

If there are no objections of others, I'll change the name from "Direct Update" to "Update Pushdown".

Thanks,

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers