On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> While reviewing aggregate pushdown patch [1] we noticed that
>> RelOptInfos for upper relations do not have relids set.
> Indeed, because they don't correspond to any particular scan relation or
> set of scan relations.  I have in mind that in future releases, any
> particular upperrel might have its own definition of what the relids
> mean --- for example, in UPPERREL_SETOP it would likely be useful for
> the relids to represent the set of leaf SELECTs that have been merged
> in a particular path.
> You could imagine UPPERREL_WINDOW using the
> relids to track which window functions have been implemented in a path,
> whenever we get around to considering multiple window function orderings.
> None of that's there yet.

Why do we want to save something in Relids object which is not relids?
Wouldn't this overloading create confusion. I don't know much about
window function ordering, but purely from the above description it
looks like we are saving something in RelOptInfo which is specific to
a path. That sounds odd. But most probably, I misunderstood you.

>> create_foreignscan_plan() copies the relids from RelOptInfo into
>> ForeignScan::fs_relids. That field is used to identify the RTIs
>> covered by the ForeignScan.
> That's fine for scan/join paths.  If you want to pay attention to
> relids for an upper rel, it's up to you to know what they mean.
> I would not counsel assuming that they have anything at all to do
> with baserel RTIs.
>> We could prevent the crash by passing input_rel->relids to
>> fetch_upper_rel() in create_grouping_path() as seen in the attached
>> patch.
> I think this is fundamentally wrongheaded.  If we go that route,
> the only valid relids for any upper path would be the union of all
> baserel RTIs, making it rather pointless to carry the value around
> at all,

That won't be true if we start pushing upper operations under Append
or even Join. An aggregate of append may be calculated as aggregate of
append or append of aggregates. In the later case, we will need to
differentiate between upper relations from each segment being appended
and also the upper relation representing the overall result. A natural
way is to set relids of that upper relation with the relids of
underlying scan relations. In this case, setting relids to underlying
scan relations isn't pointless at all. And then this may apply to all
kinds of upper relations, not just aggregate/grouping

> and definitely making it impossible to use the field to
> distinguish different partial implementations of the same upperrel.

Probably, we should add another set of fields exclusive to be used for
upper relations, like some members which are exclusively used for base
relations. Storing something in relids, which is not relids looks
confusing, unless we change the name (and type) of that field or what
we store has a meaning similar to relids.

> You should look to root->all_baserels, instead, if that's the value
> you want when considering an upperrel Path.

Thanks. It looks like, for now, aggregate pushdown should use
all_baserels for an upper relation. Although, that will need to change
if we push down aggregate to the foreign server as part of converting
aggregate of append to append of aggregates.

Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to