Re: BUG #18467: postgres_fdw (deparser) ignores LimitOption - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Etsuro Fujita
Subject Re: BUG #18467: postgres_fdw (deparser) ignores LimitOption
Date
Msg-id CAPmGK141d866G7OSHkAS7u3yQicc2oW51WO4VmbJdeq6f0gA9g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BUG #18467: postgres_fdw (deparser) ignores LimitOption  (Önder Kalacı <onderkalaci@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-bugs
Hi Onder,

On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 4:15 PM Önder Kalacı <onderkalaci@gmail.com> wrote:

>> and 2) ORDER BY must already
>> > have been determined to be safe to push down before we get here.

> When I read the code, the decision for that seems to happen in the next line where this patch proposes to modify:

That is not correct; see my previous email.

>>  So
>> > in that case, if getting here, we can consider that WITH TIES is also
>> > safe to push down (if the remote is v13 or later).

>  See Tom's response here on why it might not be a good idea to pushdown
> WITH TIES: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2114796.1715878709%40sss.pgh.pa.us
>
> I think, at least not with this patch, this patch is like a bug-fix. If intended, it should be possible to
> pushdown WITH TIES with a follow-up patch?

With all due respect to him, I think he is missing that the set of
ties is determined according to ORDER BY; as explained in that email,
in that case it is guaranteed that ORDER BY is pushable, so WITH TIES
is also pushable with ORDER BY, I think.  We do not currently have a
way to do a remote-version check (without accessing the remote
server), so I agree with you that we should just diable pushing WITH
TIES fow now, though.

Thanks!

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita



pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Etsuro Fujita
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #18467: postgres_fdw (deparser) ignores LimitOption
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #18484: "Cannot enlarge string buffer" during parallel execution of prepared statement/partitioning