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

From Albe Laurenz
Subject Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW
Date
Msg-id A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B17D33229@ntex2010i.host.magwien.gv.at
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW  (Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>)
Responses Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW  (Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> I gave it a spin and could not find any undesirable behaviour, and the
> output of EXPLAIN ANALYZE looks like I'd expect.
> 
> I noticed that you use the list length of fdw_private to check if
> the UPDATE or DELETE is pushed down to the remote server or not.
> 
> While this works fine, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have some
> explicit flag in fdw_private for that purpose.  Future modifications that
> change the list length might easily overlook that it is used for this
> purpose, thereby breaking the code.
> 
> Other than that it looks alright to me.

Maybe I should have mentioned that I have set the patch to "Waiting for Author"
because I'd like to hear your opinion on that, but I'm prepared to set it
to "Ready for Committer" soon.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: gist vacuum gist access
Next
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: gist vacuum gist access