Обсуждение: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw: evaluate placeholdervars on remote server
Hi, Here is a patch for $subject. This is the same as what I proposed in combination with a feature for full joins [1]; this would allow us to push down left/right/full joins with PHVs to the remote and improve how to deparse whole-row references. Since this is implemented on top of the feature for full-joins (ie, the deparser logic for subqueries), I proposed this on that thread, but this is slightly independent from that feature (and we haven't discussed this in detail on that thread), so I think it's better to start new thread. Attached is a new version, which is created on top of [2]. I'll add this to the upcoming CF. Best regards, Etsuro Fujita [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/c449261a-b033-dc02-9254-2fe5b7044795%40lab.ntt.co.jp [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/920e660b-6fec-6022-759d-e96e37dd5984%40lab.ntt.co.jp -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Вложения
Hi, On 2017-02-28 21:45:22 +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > Here is a patch for $subject. This is a nontrivial patch, submitted just before the start of the last CF for postgres 10. Therefore I think we should move this to the next CF. - Andres
On 2017/04/04 3:21, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-02-28 21:45:22 +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote: >> Here is a patch for $subject. > > This is a nontrivial patch, submitted just before the start of the last > CF for postgres 10. Therefore I think we should move this to the next > CF. Honestly, I'm not satisfied with this patch and I think it would need more work. Moved to the next CF. Best regards, Etsuro Fujita
On 4/3/17 22:00, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > On 2017/04/04 3:21, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2017-02-28 21:45:22 +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote: >>> Here is a patch for $subject. >> >> This is a nontrivial patch, submitted just before the start of the last >> CF for postgres 10. Therefore I think we should move this to the next >> CF. > > Honestly, I'm not satisfied with this patch and I think it would need > more work. Moved to the next CF. This patch needs to be rebased for the upcoming commit fest. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
> On 15 Aug 2017, at 01:00, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 4/3/17 22:00, Etsuro Fujita wrote: >> On 2017/04/04 3:21, Andres Freund wrote: >>> On 2017-02-28 21:45:22 +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote: >>>> Here is a patch for $subject. >>> >>> This is a nontrivial patch, submitted just before the start of the last >>> CF for postgres 10. Therefore I think we should move this to the next >>> CF. >> >> Honestly, I'm not satisfied with this patch and I think it would need >> more work. Moved to the next CF. > > This patch needs to be rebased for the upcoming commit fest. Have you had a chance to look at this such that we can expect a rebased version of this patch during the commitfest? cheers ./daniel -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote: > Have you had a chance to look at this such that we can expect a rebased version > of this patch during the commitfest? Frankly, I think things where there was a ping multiple weeks before the CommitFest started and no rebase before it started should be regarded as untimely submissions, and summarily marked Returned with Feedback. The CommitFest is supposed to be a time to get things that are ready before it starts committed before it ends. Some amount of back-and-forth during the CF is of course to be expected, but we don't even really have enough bandwidth to deal with the patches that are being timely updated, never mind the ones that aren't. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
> On 15 Sep 2017, at 17:19, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote: >> Have you had a chance to look at this such that we can expect a rebased version >> of this patch during the commitfest? > > Frankly, I think things where there was a ping multiple weeks before > the CommitFest started and no rebase before it started should be > regarded as untimely submissions, and summarily marked Returned with > Feedback. The CommitFest is supposed to be a time to get things that > are ready before it starts committed before it ends. Some amount of > back-and-forth during the CF is of course to be expected, but we don't > even really have enough bandwidth to deal with the patches that are > being timely updated, never mind the ones that aren’t. I don’t necessarily disagree with this, and especially not the part about bandwidth which is absolutely correct. What has happened a lot however is that these patches have been moved to the next CF, and possibly the next from there. In that scenario, if we can get the patches rebased now they wont be in a worse state when pushed to the next compared to if they bitrot further. That being said, perhaps we should move closer to a model like what you describe, but thats for another thread to discuss rather than threadjacking this one more IMO. cheers ./daniel -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On 2017/09/16 0:19, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote: >> Have you had a chance to look at this such that we can expect a rebased version >> of this patch during the commitfest? > > Frankly, I think things where there was a ping multiple weeks before > the CommitFest started and no rebase before it started should be > regarded as untimely submissions, and summarily marked Returned with > Feedback. The CommitFest is supposed to be a time to get things that > are ready before it starts committed before it ends. Some amount of > back-and-forth during the CF is of course to be expected, but we don't > even really have enough bandwidth to deal with the patches that are > being timely updated, never mind the ones that aren't. Agreed. I marked this as RWF. Thank you. 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