Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> OK.  I was trying to be noninvasive, but this does look more sensible.
>> I think this might read better if we inverted the test (so that
>> the outer-join-joinclause-must-be-pushable case would come first).

> Ok. In fact, thinking more about it, we should probably test
> JOIN_INNER explicitly instead of !IS_OUTER_JOIN() since SEMI_JOINS are
> not considered as outer joins and I am not sure how would we be
> treating the quals for those.

No, that's correct as-is --- or at least, if it's not correct, there
are a bunch of other places that are also not correct.

Thinking about this further, though, it seems like a more straightforward
solution to the original problem is to not store quals in a Plan's
fdw_private list in the first place.  Putting them there is at best
useless overhead that the finished plan will have to drag around;
and it's not terribly hard to imagine future changes that would make
having never-processed-by-setrefs.c qual trees in a plan be broken in
other ways.  Can't we use a field in the rel's PgFdwRelationInfo to
carry the remote_exprs forward from postgresGetForeignPlan to
postgresPlanDirectModify?

                        regards, tom lane


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

Reply via email to