> On 2015/03/03 21:34, Shigeru Hanada wrote: > > I rebased "join push-down" patch onto Kaigai-san's Custom/Foreign Join > > v6 patch. > > Thanks for the work, Hanada-san and KaiGai-san! > > Maybe I'm missing something, but did we agree to take this approach, ie, > "join push-down" on top of custom join? There is a comment ahout that > [1]. I just thought it'd be better to achieve a consensus before > implementing the feature further. > It is not correct. The join push-down feature is not implemented on top of the custom-join feature, however, both of them are 99% similar on both of the concept and implementation. So, we're working to enhance foreign/custom-join interface together, according to Robert's suggestion [3], using postgres_fdw extension as a minimum worthwhile example for both of foreign/custom-scan.
[3] http://bit.ly/1w1PoDU > > but still the patch > > has an issue about joins underlying UPDATE or DELETE. Now I'm working > > on fixing this issue. > > Is that something like "UPDATE foo ... FROM bar ..." where both foo and > bar are remote? If so, I think it'd be better to push such an update > down to the remote, as discussed in [2], and I'd like to work on that > together! > Hanada-san, could you give us test query to reproduce the problem above? I and Fujita-san can help to investigate the problem from different standpoints for each. > Sorry for having been late for the party. > We are still in the party. Thanks, -- NEC OSS Promotion Center / PG-Strom Project KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com> -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
