Re: Partial aggregates pushdown - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alexander Pyhalov
Subject Re: Partial aggregates pushdown
Date
Msg-id f47c4cb0965a8de2a19322970e7ba7e3@postgrespro.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Partial aggregates pushdown  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: Partial aggregates pushdown
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian писал 2023-06-20 03:42:
> Apologies for the delay in my reply to this email.  I looked into the
> existing code and I found three things:
> 
> 1)  PQserverVersion() just pulls the conn->sversion value from the
> existing connection because pqSaveParameterStatus() pulls the
> server_version sent by the backend;  no need to issue SELECT version().
> 
> 2)  postgres_fdw already has nine calls to GetConnection(), and only
> opens a connection if it already doesn't have one.  Here is an example:
> 
>     /* Get the remote estimate */
>     conn = GetConnection(fpinfo->user, false, NULL);
>     get_remote_estimate(sql.data, conn, &rows, &width,
>                 &startup_cost, &total_cost);
>     ReleaseConnection(conn);
> 
> Therefore, it seems like it would be near-zero cost to just call conn =
> GetConnection() and then PQserverVersion(conn), and 
> ReleaseConnection().
> You can then use the return value of PQserverVersion() to determine if
> you can push down partial aggregates.
> 

Hi.
Currently we don't get remote connection while planning if 
use_remote_estimate is not set.
Such change would require to get remote connection in planner, not in 
executor.
This can lead to change of behavior (like errors in explain when user 
mapping is wrong - e.g. bad password is specified).
Also this potentially can lead to establishing connections even when 
plan node is not actually used
(like extreme example - select sum(score) from t limit 0).
I'm not saying we shouldn't do it - just hint at possible consequences.

-- 
Best regards,
Alexander Pyhalov,
Postgres Professional



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Will Mortensen
Date:
Subject: [PATCH] doc: add missing mention of MERGE in MVCC
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: collation-related loose ends before beta2