Re: TRUNCATE on foreign table - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Kazutaka Onishi |
---|---|
Subject | Re: TRUNCATE on foreign table |
Date | |
Msg-id | CAJuF6cMqL8TzHVJxGTEKL3ijcNW7q5sNnpnjxoc6KJ82TYQRsw@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: TRUNCATE on foreign table (Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@heterodb.com>) |
Responses |
Re: TRUNCATE on foreign table
Re: TRUNCATE on foreign table |
List | pgsql-hackers |
Hi For now, I've fixed the v8 according to your comments, excluding anything related with 'hash table' and 'do_sql_commands'. > 1) We usually have the struct name after "+typedef struct > ForeignTruncateInfo", please refer to other struct defs in the code > base. I've modified the definition. By the way, there're many "typedef struct{ ... }NameOfStruct;" in codes, about 40% of other struct defs (checked by find&grep), thus I felt the way is not "MUST". > 2) We should add ORDER BY clause(probably ORDER BY id?) for data > generating select queries in added tests, otherwise tests might become > unstable. I've added "ORDER BY" at the postges_fdw test. > 3) How about dropping the tables, foreign tables that got created for > testing in postgres_fdw.sql? I've added "cleanup" commands. > 4) I think it's not "foreign-tables"/"foreign-table", it can be > "foreign tables"/"foreign table", other places in the docs use this > convention. > + the context where the foreign-tables are truncated. It is a list > of integers and same length with I've replaced "foreign-table" to "foreign table". > 5) Can't we use do_sql_command function after making it non static? We > could go extra mile, that is we could make do_sql_command little more > generic by passing some enum for each of PQsendQuery, > PQsendQueryParams, PQsendQueryPrepared and PQsendPrepare and replace > the respective code chunks with do_sql_command in postgres_fdw.c. I've skipped this for now. I feel it sounds cool, but not easy. It should be added by another patch because it's not only related to TRUNCATE. > 6) A white space error when the patch is applied. > contrib/postgres_fdw/postgres_fdw.c:2913: trailing whitespace. I've checked the patch and clean spaces. But I can't confirmed this message by attaching(patch -p1 < ...) my v8 patch. If this still occurs, please tell me how you attach the patch. > 7) I may be missing something here. Why do we need a hash table at > all? We could just do it with a linked list right? Is there a specific > reason to use a hash table? IIUC, the hash table entries will be lying > around until the local session exists since we are not doing > hash_destroy. I've skipped this for now. > 8) How about having something like this? > + <command>TRUNCATE</command> can be used for foreign tables if the > foreign data wrapper supports, for instance, see <xref > linkend="postgres-fdw"/>. Sounds good. I've added. 9) > + <command>TRUNCATE</command> for each foreign server being involved > > + in one <command>TRUNCATE</command> command (note that invocations > The 'being' in above sentence can be omitted. I've fixed this. 10) > + the context where the foreign-tables are truncated. It is a list of integers and same length with > There should be a verb between 'and' and same : > It is a list of integers and has same length with I've fixed this. 11) > + * Information related to truncation of foreign tables. This is used for > + * the elements in a hash table that uses the server OID as lookup key, > The 'uses' is for 'This' (the struct), so 'that' should be 'and': > the elements in a hash table and uses > Alternatively: > the elements in a hash table. It uses I've fixed this. 12) > + relids_extra = lappend_int(relids_extra, (recurse ? TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT__NORMAL : TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT__ONLY)); > I am curious: isn't one underscore enough in the identifier (before NORMAL and ONLY) ? > I suggest naming them TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_NORMAL and TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_ONLY > + relids_extra = lappend_int(relids_extra, TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT__CASCADED); > I wonder if TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_CASCADING is better than TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT__CASCADED. Note the removal of the extraunderscore. > In English, we say: truncation cascading to foreign table. > w.r.t. Bharath's question on using hash table, I think the reason is that the search would be more efficient: I've changed these labels shown below: TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT__NORMAL -> TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_NORMAL TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT__ONLY -> TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_ONLY TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT__CASCADED -> TRUNCATE_REL_CONTEXT_CASCADING 14) > + ft_info = hash_search(ft_htab, &server_oid, HASH_ENTER, &found); > and > + while ((ft_info = hash_seq_search(&seq)) != NULL) > + * Now go through the hash table, and process each entry associated to the > + * servers involved in the TRUNCATE. > associated to -> associated with I've fixed this. 14) Should the hash table be released at the end of ExecuteTruncateGuts() ? I've skipped this for now. 2021年4月4日(日) 14:13 Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@heterodb.com>: > > 2021年4月4日(日) 13:07 Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>: > > > > On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 8:31 PM Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com> wrote: > > > w.r.t. Bharath's question on using hash table, I think the reason is that the search would be more efficient: > > > > Generally, sequential search would be slower if there are many entries > > in a list. Here, the use case is to store all the foreign table ids > > associated with each foreign server and I'm not sure how many foreign > > tables will be provided in a single truncate command that belong to > > different foreign servers. I strongly feel the count will be less and > > using a list would be easier than to have a hash table. Others may > > have better opinions. > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200115081126.GK2243@paquier.xyz > > It was originally implemented using a simple list, then modified according to > the comment by Michael. > I think it is just a matter of preference. > > > > Should the hash table be released at the end of ExecuteTruncateGuts() ? > > > > If we go with a hash table and think that the frequency of "TRUNCATE" > > commands on foreign tables is heavy in a local session, then it does > > make sense to not destroy the hash, otherwise destroy the hash. > > > In most cases, TRUNCATE is not a command frequently executed. > So, exactly, it is just a matter of preference. > > Best regards, > -- > HeteroDB, Inc / The PG-Strom Project > KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@heterodb.com>
Attachment
pgsql-hackers by date: