Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW

Hi

2014-07-30 10:22 GMT+02:00 Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>:

> (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".
>

I like "Update Pushdown" - it is simple without other semantic

Regards

Pavel

>
> Thanks,
>
> Best regards,
> Etsuro Fujita
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>