Re: [idea] more aggressive join pushdown on postgres_fdw - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [idea] more aggressive join pushdown on postgres_fdw
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmoa665CLwbVgRR=M9-PZCTtO+ckixPz+6JcZ+Mu82LoJaQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [idea] more aggressive join pushdown on postgres_fdw  (Shigeru HANADA <shigeru.hanada@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Shigeru HANADA <shigeru.hanada@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2015/06/05 6:43、Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> のメール:
>> On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com> wrote:
>> Neat idea.  This ties into something I've thought about and mentioned
>> before: what if the innerrel is local, but there's a replicated copy
>> on the remote server?  Perhaps both cases are worth thinking about at
>> some point.
>
> Interesting, but I’m not sure that I understood the situation.
>
> Here which kind of replication method do you mean?  I guess you assume some kind of per-table replication such as
Slony-Ior materialized views with postgres_fdw or dblink, in postgres_fdw case.  If this assumption is correct, we need
amapping between a local ordinary table and a foreign table which points remote replicated table. 

Right.  I was thinking of BDR, in particular, or some future future
in-core feature which might be similar, but Slony could do the same
thing.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [CORE] back-branch multixact fixes & 9.5 alpha/beta: schedule
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1