On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 9:01 AM Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@heterodb.com> wrote:
> 2018年12月30日(日) 4:12 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> >
> > Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@heterodb.com> writes:
> > > 2018年12月29日(土) 1:44 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> > >> However, first I'd like to know why this situation is arising in the first
> > >> place. To have the situation you're describing, we'd have to have
> > >> attempted to make some Gather paths before we have all the partial paths
> > >> for the relation they're for. Why is that a good thing to do? It seems
> > >> like such Gathers are necessarily being made with incomplete information,
> > >> and we'd be better off to fix things so that none are made till later.
> >
> > > Because of the hook location, Gather-node shall be constructed with built-in
> > > and foreign partial scan node first, then extension gets a chance to add its
> > > custom paths (partial and full).
> > > At the set_rel_pathlist(), set_rel_pathlist_hook() is invoked next to the
> > > generate_gather_paths().
> >
> > Hmm. I'm inclined to think that we should have a separate hook
> > in which extensions are allowed to add partial paths, and that
> > set_rel_pathlist_hook should only be allowed to add regular paths.
+1. This idea sounds sensible to me.
> >
> I have almost same opinion, but the first hook does not need to be
> dedicated for partial paths. As like set_foreign_pathlist() doing, we can
> add both of partial and regular paths here, then generate_gather_paths()
> may generate a Gather-path on top of the best partial-path.
>
Won't it be confusing for users if we allow both partial and full
paths in first hook and only full paths in the second hook?
Basically, in many cases, the second hook won't be of much use. What
advantage you are seeing in allowing both partial and full paths in
the first hook?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
