On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> I noticed that the following note about direct modification via
> GetForeignUpperPaths in fdwhandler.sgml is a bit confusing. We have another
> approach using PlanDirectModify, so that should be reflected in the note as
> well. Please find attached a patch.
>
> <function>PlanForeignModify</> and the other callbacks described in
> <xref linkend="fdw-callbacks-update"> are designed around the
> assumption
> that the foreign relation will be scanned in the usual way and then
> individual row updates will be driven by a local
> <literal>ModifyTable</>
> plan node. This approach is necessary for the general case where an
> update requires reading local tables as well as foreign tables.
> However, if the operation could be executed entirely by the foreign
> server, the FDW could generate a path representing that and insert it
> into the <literal>UPPERREL_FINAL</> upper relation, where it would
> compete against the <literal>ModifyTable</> approach.
I suppose this is factually correct, but I don't think it's very
illuminating. I think that if we're going to document both
approaches, there should be some discussion of the pros and cons of
PlanDirectModify vs. PlanForeignModify. Of course either should be
better than an iterative ModifyTable, but how should the FDW author
decide between the two of them?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
