Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Etsuro Fujita
Subject Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW
Date
Msg-id 56A0A9F0.9090304@lab.ntt.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW  (Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lathia@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW  (Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lathia@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2016/01/20 19:57, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
> Overall I am quite done with the review of this patch. Patch is in good
> shape and covered most of the things which been discussed earlier
> or been mentioned during review process. Patch pass through the
> make check and also includes good test coverage.

Thanks for the review!

> Here are couple of things which is still open for discussion:

> 1)
>         .) When Tom Lane and Stephen Frost suggested getting the core
>         code involved,
>         I thought that we can do the mandatory checks into core it self
>         and making
>         completely out of dml_is_pushdown_safe(). Please correct me

>     The reason why I put that function in postgres_fdw.c is Check point 4:
>
>     +  * 4. We can't push an UPDATE down, if any expressions to assign
>     to the target
>     +  * columns are unsafe to evaluate on the remote server.

> Here I was talking about checks related to triggers, or to LIMIT. I think
> earlier thread talked about those mandatory check to the core. So may
> be we can move those checks into make_modifytable() before calling
> the PlanDMLPushdown.
>
> This need to handle by the Owner.

Done.  For that, I modified relation_has_row_triggers a bit, renamed it
to has_row_triggers (more shortly), and moved it to plancat.c.  And I
merged dml_is_pushdown_safe with postgresPlanDMLPushdown, and revised
that callback routine a bit.  Attached is an updated version of the
patch created on top of Robert's version of the patch [1], which fixes
handling of RETURNING tableoid in updating foreign tables.

> 2) Decision on whether we need the separate new node ForeignUpdate,
> ForeignDelete. In my opinion I really don't see the need of this as we
> that will add lot of duplicate. Having said that if committer or someone
> else feel like that will make code more clean that is also true,
>
> This need more comments from the committer.

I agree with you.

Other changes:

* In previous version, I assumed that PlanDMLPushdown sets fsSystemCol
to true when rewriting the ForeignScan plan node so as to push down an
UPDATE/DELETE to the remote server, in order to initialize t_tableOid
for the scan tuple in ForeignNext.  The reason is that I created the
patch so that the scan tuple is provided to the local query's RETURNING
computation, which might see the tableoid column.  In this version,
however, I modified the patch so that the tableoid value is inserted by
ModifyTable.  This eliminates the need for postgres_fdw (or any other
FDW) to set fsSystemCol to true in PlanDMLPushdown.

* Add set_transmission_modes/reset_transmission_modes to
deparsePushedDownUpdateSql.

* Revise comments a bit further.

* Revise docs, including a fix for a wrong copy-and-paste.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

[1]
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoZ40j2uC5aC1NXu03oj4CrVOLkS15XX+PTFP-1U-8zR1Q@mail.gmail.com

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Victor Wagner
Date:
Subject: Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level.
Next
From: Etsuro Fujita
Date:
Subject: Re: Odd behavior in foreign table modification (Was: Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW)