Re: Status of FDW pushdowns - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 12:43:44PM -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:26 PM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 11:15:36AM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> >> On 11/28/2013 03:24 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> >> > WITH, or SRF, or whatever, the point is that we need to be able to
> >> > specify what we're sending--probably single opaque strings delimited
> >> > just as we do other strings--and what we might get back--errors only,
> >> > rows, [sets of] refcursors are the ones I can think of offhand.
> >>
> >> So, you're thinking of something like:
> >>
> >> WITH FOREIGN somecte AS $$... foreign query ...$$
> >> SELECT ...
> >> FROM somecte;
> >
> > I was picturing something a little more like an SRF which would take
> > one opaque string, the remote command, some descriptor, perhaps an
> > enum, of what if anything might come back.  Long ago, I implemented a
> > similar thing in DBI-Link.  It was called
> >
> > remote_exec_dbh(data_source_id integer, query text, returns_rows bool)
> 
> Couple thoughts:
> *) Any 'pass through' API should support parameterization (the FDW may
> not support that, but many will and API should allow for it).   Lack
> of parameterization is a major downside of dblink.  The function could
> be set up to be variadic for the parameters.

I don't know for sure that that needs to be in version 1 of this.  It
definitely shouldn't block implementing the non-parameterized one.

> *) For a connectivity APIs of this style, Dblink-ish mechanic of
> separating command execution from data returning commands is likely
> the right way to go.  Also, probably better to stick with SRF
> mechanics if we go the 'function route'.  So basically we are making
> dblink for FDW, adding parameterization and some concept of utilizing
> the foreign server.

Yes, modulo the above.

> All this is assuming we are adding a special remote execution function
> ('fdwlink').  While that would be great, it's a significant deviation
> from the standard into postgresql specific SRF syntax.

What the standard has is literally insane.

> If some of the qual pushdown deparsing functionality could be put
> inside the internal FDW API, then you'd get the best of both worlds.

If this were flawless on the PostgreSQL side (i.e. our path generator
understood everything perfectly including aggregates) and trivial to
implement correctly in FDWs, certainly.

The idea here is that such a happy situation will not obtain until
much later, if ever, and meanwhile, we need a way to get things
accomplished even if it's inelegant, inefficient, etc.  The
alternative is that those things simply will not get accomplished at
all.

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