Re: Asymmetric partition-wise JOIN - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On 21.08.2020 09:02, Andrey V. Lepikhov wrote:
> On 7/1/20 2:10 PM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 27 Dec 2019, at 08:34, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@heterodb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The attached v2 fixed the problem, and regression test finished 
>>> correctly.
>>
>> This patch no longer applies to HEAD, please submit an rebased version.
>> Marking the entry Waiting on Author in the meantime.
> Rebased version of the patch on current master (d259afa736).
>
> I rebased it because it is a base of my experimental feature than we 
> don't break partitionwise join of a relation with foreign partition 
> and a local relation if we have info that remote server has foreign 
> table link to the local relation (by analogy with shippable extensions).
>
> Maybe mark as 'Needs review'?
>
Status update for a commitfest entry.

According to cfbot, the patch fails to apply. Could you please send a 
rebased version?

This thread was inactive for quite some time. Is anyone going to 
continue working on it?

I see some interest in the idea of sharable hash, but I don't see even a 
prototype in this thread. So, probably, it is a matter of a separate 
discussion.

Also, I took a look at the code. It looks like it needs some extra work. 
I am not a big expert in this area, so I'm sorry if questions are obvious.

1. What would happen if this assumption is not met?

+         * MEMO: We assume this pathlist keeps at least one AppendPath that
+         * represents partitioned table-scan, symmetric or asymmetric
+         * partition-wise join. It is not correct right now, however, a 
hook
+         * on add_path() to give additional decision for path removel 
allows
+         * to retain this kind of AppendPath, regardless of its cost.

2. Why do we wrap extract_asymmetric_partitionwise_subjoin() call into 
PG_TRY/PG_CATCH? What errors do we expect?

3. It looks like a crutch. If it isn't, I'd like to see a better comment 
about why "dynamic programming" is not applicable here.
And shouldn't we also handle a root->join_cur_level?

+                /* temporary disables "dynamic programming" algorithm */
+                root->join_rel_level = NULL;

4. This change looks like it can lead to a memory leak for old code. 
Maybe it is never the case, but again I think it worth a comment.

-    /* If there's nothing to adjust, don't call this function. */
-    Assert(nappinfos >= 1 && appinfos != NULL);
+    /* If there's nothing to adjust, just return a duplication */
+    if (nappinfos == 0)
+        return copyObject(node);

5. extract_asymmetric_partitionwise_subjoin() lacks a comment

The new status of this patch is: Waiting on Author

-- 
Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company