Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW

(2014/07/29 0:58), Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> wrote:
>> Shigeru Hanada wrote:
>>> * Naming of new behavior
>>> You named this optimization "Direct Update", but I'm not sure that
>>> this is intuitive enough to express this behavior. I would like to
>>> hear opinions of native speakers.
>>
>> How about "batch foreign update" or "batch foreign modification"?
>> (Disclaimer: I'm not a native speaker either.)
>
> I think direct update sounds pretty good. "Batch" does not sound as
> good to me, since it doesn't clearly describe what makes this patch
> special as opposed to some other grouping of updates that happens to
> produce a speedup.

I agree with Robert on that point.

> Another term that might be used is "update pushdown", since we are
> pushing the whole update to the remote server instead of having the
> local server participate. Without looking at the patch, I don't have
> a strong opinion on whether that's better than "direct update" in this
> context.

"Update Pushdown" is fine with me.

If there are no objections of others, I'll change the name from "Direct
Update" to "Update Pushdown".

Thanks,

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita