On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:10 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> IIUC, I think that if ROW_MARK_COPY is in use, the descriptor would >> have 6 columns: those 4, plus a whole-row var for ft1 and another >> whole-row bar for ft2. Maybe I'm missing something, though. > > You're right. The result tuple for the Robert's example has 6 > attributes in the order of [ft1.a, ft1.b, (ft1.a, ft1.b), ft2.a...] > > But the point of the discussion is in another point. The problem > is when such joins are joined with another local table. For such > case, the whole-row reference for the intermediate foreign-join > would lose the targets in top-level tuple.
Really? Would that mean that ROW_MARK_COPY is totally broken? I bet it's not. >> > 4, plus a whole-row reference for ROW_MARK_COPY. If we know what >> > values we're going to store in columns 1..4, couldn't we just form >> > them into a tuple to populate column 5? We don't actually need to be >> > able to fetch such a tuple from the remote side because we can just >> > construct it. I think. >> >> I also was thinking whether we could replace one of the whole-row vars >> with a whole-row var that represents the scan slot of the >> ForeignScanState node. > > I suppose it requires additional resjunk to be added on joinrel > creation, which is what Kaigai-san said as overkill. But I'm > interedted in what it looks. I think it rather requires *replacing* two resjunk columns by one new one. The whole-row references for the individual foreign tables are only there to support EvalPlanQual; if we instead have a column to populate the foreign scan's slot directly, then we can use that column for that purpose directly and there's no remaining use for the whole-row vars on the baserels. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
