Re: FDW for PostgreSQL

From: Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>
Cc: Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FDW for PostgreSQL
Date: 2012-11-22 05:40:48
Message-ID: CAEZqfEcvQQjot68R5BEjUzKZnzNAC6jTDGF6E0EwxfWus9Wdog@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> wrote:

> At execute_query(), it stores the retrieved rows onto tuplestore of
> festate->tuples at once. Doesn't it make problems when remote-
> table has very big number of rows?
>

No. postgres_fdw uses single-row processing mode of libpq when
retrieving query results in execute_query, so memory usage will
be stable at a certain level.

> IIRC, the previous code used cursor feature to fetch a set of rows
> to avoid over-consumption of local memory. Do we have some
> restriction if we fetch a certain number of rows with FETCH?
> It seems to me, we can fetch 1000 rows for example, and tentatively
> store them onto the tuplestore within one PG_TRY() block (so, no
> need to worry about PQclear() timing), then we can fetch remote
> rows again when IterateForeignScan reached end of tuplestore.
>

As you say, postgres_fdw had used cursor to avoid possible memory
exhaust on large result set. I switched to single-row processing mode
(it could be said "protocol-level cursor"), which was added in 9.2,
because it accomplish same task with less SQL calls than cursor.

Regards,
--
Shigeru HANADA

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Karl O. Pinc 2012-11-22 05:56:13 Re: Doc patch: Document names of automatically created constraints and indexes
Previous Message Ranjeet Dhumal 2012-11-22 05:38:53 Re: ERROR: volatile EquivalenceClass has no sortref