> Sorry for jumping into this late. > > Instead of custom node, it might be better idea to improve FDW infrastructure > to push join. For the starters, is it possible for the custom scan node > hooks to create a ForeignScan node? In general, I think, it might be better > for the custom scan hooks to create existing nodes if they serve the purpose. > It does not work well because existing FDW infrastructure is designed to perform on foreign tables, not regular tables. Probably, it needs to revise much our assumption around the background code, if we re-define the purpose of FDW infrastructure. For example, ForeignScan is expected to return a tuple according to the TupleDesc that is exactly same with table definition. It does not fit the requirement if we replace a join-node by ForeignScan because its TupleDesc of joined relations is not predefined.
I'd like to define these features are designed for individual purpose. FDW is designed to intermediate an external data source and internal heap representation according to foreign table definition. In other words, its role is to generate contents of predefined database object on the fly. On the other hands, custom-scan is designed to implement alternative ways to scan / join relations in addition to the methods supported by built-in feature. I'm motivated to implement GPU acceleration feature that works transparently for application. Thus, it has to be capable on regular tables, because most of application stores data on regular tables, not foreign ones. > Since a custom node is open implementation, it will be important to pass > as much information down to the hooks as possible; lest the hooks will be > constrained. Since the functions signatures within the planner, optimizer > will change from time to time, so the custom node hook signatures will need > to change from time to time. That might turn out to be maintenance overhead. > Yes. You are also right. But it also makes maintenance overhead if hook has many arguments nobody uses. Probably, it makes sense to list up the arguments that cannot be reproduced from other information, can be reproduced but complicated steps, and can be reproduced easily. Below is the information we cannot reproduce: - PlannerInfo *root - RelOptInfo *joinrel - RelOptInfo *outerrel - RelOptInfo *innerrel - JoinType jointype - SpecialJoinInfo *sjinfo - List *restrictlist Below is the information we can reproduce but complicated steps: - List *mergeclause_list - bool mergejoin_allow - Relids param_source_rels - Relids extra_lateral_rels Below is the information we can reproduce easily: - SemiAntiJoinFactors *semifactors I think, the first two categories or the first category (if functions to reproduce the second group is exposed) should be informed to extension, however, priority of the third group is not high. > BTW, is it a good idea for custom nodes to also affect other paths like > append, group etc.? Will it need separate hooks for each of those? > Yes. I plan to support above plan node, in addition to scan / join only. The custom-scan node is thin abstraction towards general executor behavior, so I believe it is not hard to enhance this node, without new plan node for each of them. Of course, it will need separate hook to add alternative path on the planner stage, but no individual plan nodes. (Sorry, it was unclear for me what does the "hook" mean.) Thanks, -- NEC OSS Promotion Center / PG-Strom Project KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: Ashutosh Bapat [mailto:ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 5:59 PM > To: Kohei KaiGai > Cc: Kaigai, Kouhei(海外, 浩平); Stephen Frost; Shigeru Hanada; Jim > Mlodgenski; Robert Haas; Tom Lane; PgHacker; Peter Eisentraut > Subject: Re: Custom Scan APIs (Re: [HACKERS] Custom Plan node) > > > > > On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote: > > > Folks, > > Let me remind the custom-scan patches; that is a basis feature of > remote join of postgres_fdw, cache-only scan, (upcoming) GPU > acceleration feature or various alternative ways to scan/join > relations. > Unfortunately, small amount of discussion we could have in this > commit > fest, even though Hanada-san volunteered to move the patches into > "ready for committer" state at the CF-Nov. > > > > Sorry for jumping into this late. > > Instead of custom node, it might be better idea to improve FDW infrastructure > to push join. For the starters, is it possible for the custom scan node > hooks to create a ForeignScan node? In general, I think, it might be better > for the custom scan hooks to create existing nodes if they serve the purpose. > > > > > Prior to time-up, I'd like to ask hacker's opinion about its > potential > arguable points (from my standpoint) if it needs to be fixed up. > One is hook definition to add alternative join path, and the other > one > is a special varno when a custom scan replace a join node. > I'd like to see your opinion about them while we still have to change > the design if needed. > > (1) Interface to add alternative paths in addition to built-in join > paths > > > This patch adds "add_join_path_hook" on add_paths_to_joinrel to > allow > extensions to provide alternative scan path in addition to the > built-in > join paths. Custom-scan path being added is assumed to perform to > scan > on a (virtual) relation that is a result set of joining relations. > My concern is its arguments to be pushed. This hook is declared > as follows: > > /* Hook for plugins to add custom join path, in addition to default > ones */ > typedef void (*add_join_path_hook_type)(PlannerInfo *root, > RelOptInfo *joinrel, > RelOptInfo *outerrel, > RelOptInfo *innerrel, > JoinType jointype, > SpecialJoinInfo > *sjinfo, > List *restrictlist, > List *mergeclause_list, > SemiAntiJoinFactors > *semifactors, > Relids > param_source_rels, > Relids > extra_lateral_rels); > extern PGDLLIMPORT add_join_path_hook_type add_join_path_hook; > > Likely, its arguments upper than restrictlist should be informed > to extensions, > because these are also arguments of add_paths_to_joinrel(). > However, I'm not 100% certain how about other arguments should be > informed. > Probably, it makes sense to inform param_source_rels and > extra_lateral_rels > to check whether the path is sensible for parameterized paths. > On the other hand, I doubt whether mergeclause_list is usuful to > deliver. > (It may make sense if someone tries to implement their own > merge-join > implementation??) > > I'd like to seem idea to improve the current interface > specification. > > > > > Since a custom node is open implementation, it will be important to pass > as much information down to the hooks as possible; lest the hooks will be > constrained. Since the functions signatures within the planner, optimizer > will change from time to time, so the custom node hook signatures will need > to change from time to time. That might turn out to be maintenance overhead. > > > BTW, is it a good idea for custom nodes to also affect other paths like > append, group etc.? Will it need separate hooks for each of those? > > > > > (2) CUSTOM_VAR for special Var reference > > @@ -134,6 +134,7 @@ typedef struct Expr > #define INNER_VAR 65000 /* reference to inner > subplan */ > #define OUTER_VAR 65001 /* reference to outer > subplan */ > #define INDEX_VAR 65002 /* reference to index > column */ > +#define CUSTOM_VAR 65003 /* reference to custom > column */ > > I newly added CUSTOM_VAR to handle a case when custom-scan override > join relations. > Var-nodes within join plan are adjusted to refer either > ecxt_innertuple or > ecxt_outertuple of ExprContext. It makes a trouble if custom-scan > runs > instead of built-in joins, because its tuples being fetched are > usually > stored on the ecxt_scantuple, thus Var-nodes also need to have right > varno neither inner nor outer. > > SetPlanRefCustomScan callback, being kicked on set_plan_refs, > allows > extensions to rewrite Var-nodes within custom-scan node to indicate > ecxt_scantuple using CUSTOM_VAR, instead of inner or outer. > For example, a var-node with varno=CUSTOM_VAR and varattno=3 means > this node reference the third attribute of the tuple in > ecxt_scantuple. > I think it is a reasonable solution, however, I'm not 100% certain > whether people have more graceful idea to implement it. > > If you have comments around above two topic, or others, please give > your ideas. > > Thanks, > > > 2014-01-28 9:14 GMT+09:00 Kouhei Kaigai <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com>: > > > Hi Stephen, > > > > Thanks for your comments. > > > >> * Kouhei Kaigai (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote: > >> > Is somebody available to volunteer to review the custom-scan > patch? > >> > >> I looked through it a bit and my first take away from it was > that the patches > >> to actually use the new hooks were also making more changes to > the backend > >> code, leaving me with the impression that the proposed interface > isn't > >> terribly stable. Perhaps those changes should have just been > in the first > >> patch, but they weren't and that certainly gave me pause. > >> > > Yes, the part-1 patch provides a set of interface portion to > interact > > between the backend code and extension code. Rest of part-2 and > part-3 > > portions are contrib modules that implements its feature on top > of > > custom-scan API. > > > >> I'm also not entirely convinced that this is the direction to > go in when > >> it comes to pushing down joins to FDWs. While that's certainly > a goal that > >> I think we all share, this seems to be intending to add a > completely different > >> feature which happens to be able to be used for that. For FDWs, > wouldn't > >> we only present the FDW with the paths where the foreign tables > for that > >> FDW, or perhaps just a given foreign server, are being joined? > >> > > FDW's join pushing down is one of the valuable use-cases of this > interface, > > but not all. As you might know, my motivation is to implement > GPU acceleration > > feature on top of this interface, that offers alternative way > to scan or join > > relations or potentially sort or aggregate. > > Probably, it is too stretch interpretation if we implement > radix-sort on top > > of FDW. I'd like you to understand the part-3 patch (FDW's join > pushing-down) > > is a demonstration of custom-scan interface for application, but > not designed > > for a special purpose. > > > > Right now, I put all the logic to interact CSI and FDW driver > on postgres_fdw > > side, it might be an idea to have common code (like a logic to > check whether > > the both relations to be joined belongs to same foreign server) > on the backend > > side as something like a gateway of them. > > > > > > As an aside, what should be the scope of FDW interface? > > In my understanding, it allows extension to implement "something" > on behalf of > > a particular data structure being declared with CREATE FOREIGN > TABLE. > > In other words, extension's responsibility is to generate a view > of "something" > > according to PostgreSQL' internal data structure, instead of the > object itself. > > On the other hands, custom-scan interface allows extensions to > implement > > alternative methods to scan or join particular relations, but > it is not a role > > to perform as a target being referenced in queries. In other words, > it is methods > > to access objects. > > It is natural both features are similar because both of them > intends extensions > > to hook the planner and executor, however, its purpose is > different. > > > > Thanks, > > -- > > NEC OSS Promotion Center / PG-Strom Project > > KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com> > > > > -- > > KaiGai Kohei <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list > (firstname.lastname@example.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > > > > > > > -- > > Best Wishes, > Ashutosh Bapat > EnterpriseDB Corporation > The Postgres Database Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers