Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZRjnBfnoZbvobvRiyst5gUPrPOX0NTd0SkmYjb6ymvCQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW  (Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Etsuro Fujita
<fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> On 2016/03/10 2:56, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I see that you went and changed all of the places that tested for !=
>> CMD_SELECT and made them test for == CMD_INSERT || == CMD_UPDATE || ==
>> CMD_DELETE instead.  I think that's the wrong direction.  I think that
>> we should use the != CMD_SELECT version of the test everywhere.
>> That's a single test instead of three, so marginally faster, and maybe
>> marginally more future-proof.
>>
>> I think deparsePushedDownUpdateSql should be renamed to use the new
>> "direct modify" naming, like deparseDirectUpdateSql, maybe.
>>
>> I would suggest not numbering the tests in postgresPlanDirectModify.
>> That just becomes a nuisance to keep up to date as things change.
>
> Agreed.  I updated the patch to address these comments.  Attached is the
> updated version of the patch.

Committed.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794