(2014/08/13 12:40), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2014/08/12 18:34), Shigeru Hanada wrote:
>> Issues addressed by Eitoku-san were fixed properly, but he found a bug
>> and a possible enhancement in the v2 patch.
>> * push-down check misses delete triggers
>> update_is_pushdown_safe() seems to have a bug that it misses the
>> existence of row-level delete trigger. DELETE statement executed
>> against a foreign table which has row-level delete trigger is pushed
>> down to remote, and consequently no row-level delete trigger is fired.
>
> Ah, I noticed that the current code for that is not correct. Will fix.
Done.
>> * further optimization
>> Is there any chance to consider further optimization by passing the
>> operation type (UPDATE|DELETE) of undergoing statement to
>> update_is_pushdown_safe()? It seems safe to push down UPDATE
>> statement when the target foreign table has no update trigger even it
>> has a delete trigger (of course the opposite combination would be also
>> fine).
>
> Good idea! Will improve that too.
Done.
>> * Documentation
>> The requirement of pushing down UPDATE/DELETE statements would not be
>> easy to understand for non-expert users, so it seems that there is a
>> room to enhance documentation. An idea is to define which expression
>> is safe to send to remote first (it might need to mention the
>> difference of semantics), and refer the definition from the place
>> describing the requirement of pushing-down for SELECT, UPDATE and
>> DELETE.
>
> Yeah, I also think that it would not necessarily easy for the users to
> understand which expression is safe to send. So I agree with that
> enhancement, but ISTM that it would be better to do that as a separate
> patch.
As above, I'd like to leave this as another patch.
Please find attached the updated version of the patch.
Thanks,
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
