Re: FDW join pushdown and scanclauses - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ashutosh Bapat
Subject Re: FDW join pushdown and scanclauses
Date
Msg-id CAFjFpRfVvBy79wa_fDGsJdz3vMxanuqGUhrtWgJqpRyW5vj7FA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: FDW join pushdown and scanclauses  (Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
On 2016/01/08 22:05, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
In add_paths_to_joinrel(), the FDW specific hook GetForeignJoinPaths()
is called. This hook if implemented should add ForeignPaths for pushed
down joins. create_plan_recurse() calls create_scan_plan() on seeing
these paths.

create_scan_plan() generates a list of clauses to be applied on scan
from rel->baserestrictinfo and parameterization clauses. This list is
passed to create_*scan_plan routine as scanclauses. This code is very
specific for single relations scans. Now that we are using
create_scan_plan() for creating plan for join relations, it needs some
changes so that quals relevant to a join can be passed to
create_foreignscan_plan().

Do we really need that?  The relevant join quals are passed to GetForeignJoinPaths as extra->restrictlist, so I think we can get those quals during GetForeignPlan, by looking at the selected ForeignPath that is passed to that function as a parameter.

Right! You are suggesting that an FDW should just ignore scan_clauses for join relation and manage those by itself. That looks fine.
 

A related problem is in
create_foreignscan_plan(), which sets ForeignScan::fsSystemCol if a
system column is being used in the targetlist or quals. Right now it
only checks rel->baserestrictinfo, which is NULL for a joinrel. Thus in
case a system column appears in the joinclauses it will not be considered.

IIUC, we assume that such system columns are assumed to be contained in fdw_scan_tlist in the joinrel case.

From another mail thread [1] that you have started, I understood that fsSystemCol should not be set for a join relation, so the bug doesn't exist.

[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/559F9323.4080403@lab.ntt.co.jp

Thanks for your inputs.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: About get_relation_constraints and include_notnull
Next
From: Etsuro Fujita
Date:
Subject: Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW