From: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW |
Date: | 2016-02-10 13:37:48 |
Message-ID: | CAA-aLv5=RUnBQrW=8rNOS+q5xmq_M60fQqJBfP2DvrPML107oQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10 February 2016 at 08:00, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Fujita-san, I am attaching update version of the patch, which added
> the documentation update.
>
> Once we finalize this, I feel good with the patch and think that we
> could mark this as ready for committer.
I find this wording a bit confusing:
"If the IsForeignRelUpdatable pointer is set to NULL, foreign tables
are assumed to be insertable, updatable, or deletable either the FDW
provides ExecForeignInsert,ExecForeignUpdate, or ExecForeignDelete
respectively or if the FDW optimizes a foreign table update on a
foreign table using PlanDMLPushdown (PlanDMLPushdown still needs to
provide BeginDMLPushdown, IterateDMLPushdown and EndDMLPushdown to
execute the optimized update.)."
This is a very long sentence, and the word "either" doesn't work here.
Also:
"When the query doesn't has the clause, the FDW must also increment
the row count for the ForeignScanState node in the EXPLAIN ANALYZE
case."
Should read "doesn't have"
The rest looks fine AFAICT.
Regards
Thom
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Artur Zakirov | 2016-02-10 13:39:33 | Re: Mac OS: invalid byte sequence for encoding "UTF8" |
Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2016-02-10 13:36:50 | Re: Relation extension scalability |