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

From Rushabh Lathia
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw
Date
Msg-id CAGPqQf2O_gO5NQ5WxuDpomXNCn5xSKAbys1jLtKSBm-x5-ANWQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw  (Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Push down more UPDATEs/DELETEs in postgres_fdw  (Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
On 2017/02/13 18:24, Rushabh Lathia wrote:
I started reviewing the patch again. Patch applied cleanly on latest source
as well as regression pass through with the patch. I also performed
few manual testing and haven't found any regression. Patch look
much cleaner the earlier version, and don't have any major concern as
such.

Thanks for the review!

Here are few comments:

1)

@@ -211,6 +211,12 @@ typedef struct PgFdwDirectModifyState
     PGresult   *result;            /* result for query */
     int            num_tuples;        /* # of result tuples */
     int            next_tuple;        /* index of next one to return */
+    Relation    resultRel;        /* relcache entry for the target table */

Why we need resultRel? Can't we directly use dmstate->rel ?

The reason why we need that is because in get_returning_data, we pass dmstate->rel to make_tuple_from_result_row, which requires that dmstate->rel be NULL when the scan tuple is described by fdw_scan_tlist.  So in that case we set dmstate->rel to NULL and have dmstate->resultRel that is the relcache entry for the target relation in postgresBeginDirectModify.


Thanks for the explanation. We might do something here by using fdw_scan_tlist or changing the assumption of make_tuple_from_result_row(), and that way we can avoid two similar variable pointer in the PgFdwDirectModifyState.

I am okay with currently also, but it adding a note somewhere about this would be great. Also let keep this point open for the committer, if committer feel this is good then lets go ahead with this.

Here are few other cosmetic changes:

1)

+ *
+ * 'target_rel' is either zero or the rangetable index of a target relation.
+ * In the latter case this construncts FROM clause of UPDATE or USING clause
+ * of DELETE by simply ignoring the target relation while deparsing the given

Spell correction: - construncts

2)

+        /*
+         * If either input is the target relation, get all the joinclauses.
+         * Otherwise extract conditions mentioning the target relation from
+         * the joinclauses.
+         */


space between joinclauses needed.

3)

+        /*
+         * If UPDATE/DELETE on a join, create a RETURINING list used in the
+         * remote query.
+         */
+        if (fscan->scan.scanrelid == 0)
+            returningList = make_explicit_returning_list(resultRelation,
+                                                         rel,
+                                                         returningList);


Spell correction: RETURINING

I did above changes in the attached patch. Please have  a look once and then I feel like this patch is ready for committer.

Thanks,
Rushabh Lathia
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Banck
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] [patch] reorder tablespaces in basebackup tar stream forbackup_label
Next
From: Bernd Helmle
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines