On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:21 AM, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I both like and dislike this idea. The good thing is that it's way
> less hacky than what we did in our prototype, and it's also working
> out of the box. However, the problem I have with this approach is
> that the generated plans will be quite different from real
> partitioning, The main features such as partition pruning or
> partition-wise join will probably work, but you'll always have a
> ForeignScan as the primary path and I think that it'll drastically
> limit the planner and the usability.
AFAIR, there is a hook using which we can change the EXPLAIN output,
so we could change the ForeignScan label. But I don't remember that
hook top of my head and a brief look at Explain code didn't reveal
anything. May be there isn't any hook. We may be able add one in that
case or use CustomScan or something like that. I agree that seeing a
ForeignScan in the plan is not a good thing.
Anyway, the work involved in my proposal may not be worth the utility
we get out of this extension, so may not be worth pursuing it further.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company