| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Mlodgenski <jimmy76(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Custom Scan APIs (Re: Custom Plan node) |
| Date: | 2014-03-02 01:38:12 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobaUW+Dv94Nj=Ogw_+yeP1n++s-C66QxDr-JaBMNNmENg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Kouhei Kaigai (kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com) wrote:
>> IIUC, his approach was integration of join-pushdown within FDW APIs,
>> however, it does not mean the idea of remote-join is rejected.
>
> For my part, trying to consider doing remote joins *without* going
> through FDWs is just nonsensical.
That is, of course, true by definition, but I think it's putting the
focus in the wrong place. It's possible that there are other cases
when a scan might a plausible path for a joinrel even if there are no
foreign tables in play. For example, you could cache the joinrel
output and then inject a cache scan as a path for the joinrel.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-03-02 01:48:21 | Re: Custom Scan APIs (Re: Custom Plan node) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-03-02 01:34:51 | Re: Custom Scan APIs (Re: Custom Plan node) |