* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > Well, I consider that somewhat good news, because I think it would be > rather nice if we could get by with solving one problem at a time, and > if the executor part is close to being well-solved, excellent.
Sadly, I'm afraid the news really isn't all that good in the end.. > My ignorance is probably showing here, but I guess I don't understand > why it's so hard to deal with the planner side of things. My > perhaps-naive impression is that a Seq Scan node, or even an Index > Scan node, is not all that complicated. If we just want to inject > some more things that behave a lot like those into various baserels, I > guess I don't understand why that's especially hard. That's not what is being asked for here though... > Now I do understand that part of what KaiGai wants to do here is > inject custom scan paths as additional paths for *joinrels*. And I > can see why that would be somewhat more complicated. But I also don't > see why that's got to be part of the initial commit. I'd say it's more than "part" of what the goal is here- it's more or less what everything boils down to. Oh, plus being able to replace aggregates with a GPU-based operation instead, but that's no trivially done thing either really (if it is, let's get it done for FDWs already...). Thanks, Stephen
Description: Digital signature