Re: patch: SQL/MED(FDW) DDL - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Fetter
Subject Re: patch: SQL/MED(FDW) DDL
Date
Msg-id 20101001142725.GB6319@fetter.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: patch: SQL/MED(FDW) DDL  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: patch: SQL/MED(FDW) DDL
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:29:56PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mar sep 28 10:26:54 -0400 2010:
> > 
> >> Then:
> >> 
> >> - Begin a sequential scan with the following set of quals.
> >> - Begin an index scan using the index called X with the following set of quals.
> >> - Fetch next tuple.
> >> - End scan.
> > 
> > I'm not sure that it's a good idea to embed into the FDW API the
> > set of operations known to the executor.  For example your
> > proposal fails to consider bitmap scans.  Seems simpler and more
> > general to hand the quals over saying "I need to scan this
> > relation with these quals", and have it return an opaque iterable
> > object; the remote executor would be in charge of determining
> > their usage for indexscans; or even for filtering tuples with
> > quals that cannot be part of the index condition.
> 
> Yeah, that might be better.  Is it reasonable to assume we always
> want to push down as much as possible, or do we need to think about
> local work vs. remote work trade-offs?

In cases where the foreign side is not super reliable for correctness,
I'd say there's a good case for not trusting it.  Some of the Oracle
properties are like this.  I suppose we might want to make "trust the
other side to handle pushed quals" optional somehow, but I'm not
exactly sure how.

> > There doesn't to be much point in knowing the names of remote
> > indexes either (if it came to referencing them, better use OIDs)
> 
> Well, you can't assume the remote side is PG.

Very definitely not.

The main point of the feature is that it allows for *heterogeneous*
data stores.  Of course this doesn't prevent PostgreSQL from
optimizing aggressively using secret knowledge should the "foreign"
side happen to be PostgreSQL.

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: PG-Git usernames
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Patch author name on commitfest page