Re: Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ashutosh Bapat
Subject Re: Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw
Date
Msg-id CAFjFpReRgjtor3LimMpEwGkV=GEiL_uJp_f+CMcmmFLPBS23uA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw  (Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw  (Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> On 2016/11/15 19:04, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Fujita-san for working on this. I've signed up to review this
>> patch.
>
>
> Thank you for reviewing the patch!
>
>> Your latest patch doesn't not get apply cleanly apply on master branch.
>
>
> Did you apply the patch set in [1] (postgres-fdw-subquery-support-v4.patch
> and postgres-fdw-phv-pushdown-v4.patch in this order) before applying the
> latest patch?
>

I don't see any reason why DML/UPDATE pushdown should depend upon
subquery deparsing or least PHV patch. Combined together they can help
in more cases, but without those patches, we will be able to push-down
more stuff. Probably, we should just restrict push-down only for the
cases when above patches are not needed. That makes reviews easy. Once
those patches get committed, we may add more functionality depending
upon the status of this patch. Does that make sense?

-- 
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Mark Kirkwood
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: About CMake v2
Next
From: Mithun Cy
Date:
Subject: Re: Patch: Implement failover on libpq connect level.