Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 4:05 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > In get_useful_ecs_for_relation(), while checking whether to use left or > right argument of a mergejoinable operator, the arguments to bms_is_subset() > are passed in reverse order. bms_is_subset() checks

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

Thanks. On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: > >> I went over this patch in some detail today and did a lot of cosmetic > >> cleanup. The results are attached.

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> I went over this patch in some detail today and did a lot of cosmetic >> cleanup. The results are attached. I'm fairly happy with this >> version, but let me know what you think. Of course, feedback from

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

> > I went over this patch in some detail today and did a lot of cosmetic > cleanup. The results are attached. I'm fairly happy with this > version, but let me know what you think. Of course, feedback from > others is more than welcome also. > > Attached patch with some cosmetic changes (listed

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 2:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:32 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Robert Haas > wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Rushabh

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:32 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Rushabh Lathia >> wrote: >> > Thanks Ashutosh. >> > >> > Re-reviewed

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Rushabh Lathia > wrote: > > Thanks Ashutosh. > > > > Re-reviewed and Re-verified the patch, pg_sort_all_pd_v5.patch > > looks good to me. > > This patch needs a

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > Thanks Ashutosh. > > Re-reviewed and Re-verified the patch, pg_sort_all_pd_v5.patch > looks good to me. This patch needs a rebase. It's not going to work to say this is a patch proposed for commit when it's still

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

Thanks Ashutosh. Re-reviewed and Re-verified the patch, pg_sort_all_pd_v5.patch looks good to me. On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Ashutosh Bapat < ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Thanks Rushabh for your review and comments. > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Rushabh Lathia

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

Thanks Rushabh for your review and comments. On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Rushabh Lathia wrote: > Hi Ashutosh, > > I reviewed your latest version of patch and over all the implementation > and other details look good to me. > > Here are few cosmetic issues which I

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

Hi Ashutosh, I reviewed your latest version of patch and over all the implementation and other details look good to me. Here are few cosmetic issues which I found: 1) Patch not getting applied cleanly - white space warning 2) -List *usable_pathkeys = NIL; +List

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: > >> Although I'm usually on the side of marking things as extern whenever > >> we find it convenient, I'm nervous about doing

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >> Although I'm usually on the side of marking things as extern whenever >> we find it convenient, I'm nervous about doing that to >> make_canonical_pathkey(), because it has side effects. Searching the >>

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

Thanks Robert for your comments. Please see my replies inlined. Updated patch is attached. On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > I think this approach is generally reasonable, but I suggested parts > of it, so may be biased. I would be interested in

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > > Has anyone taken a close look at what happens if the two sides of > > the merge join have different implementations of the same collation > >

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

On 16 November 2015 at 17:47, Ashutosh Bapat < ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > collations arising from a foreign table's var are considered to be safer > (FDW_COLLATE_SAFE) to push down to the foreign server , since they are > either local default collation or are assumed to be same

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Greg Stark wrote: > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: >> PFA patch to get data sorted from the foreign server (postgres_fdw) >> according to the pathkeys useful for merge join. > > An idle

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Has anyone taken a close look at what happens if the two sides of > the merge join have different implementations of the same collation > name? Is there anything we should do to defend against the > problem? The issue of

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Corey Huinker wrote: > Sorry to barge in late, but I was wondering if what we've learned with this > patch can be applied to the case of asserting a sort order on a query > returning from dblink(). Nope. Sorry to the bearer of bad news,

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

On 2015/11/10 0:56, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Corey Huinker > wrote: >> Sorry to barge in late, but I was wondering if what we've learned with this >> patch can be applied to the case of asserting a sort order on a query >> returning from

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Ashutosh Bapat > wrote: > > Hi All, > > PFA patch to get data sorted from the foreign server (postgres_fdw) > > according to the pathkeys useful for

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > PFA patch to get data sorted from the foreign server (postgres_fdw) > according to the pathkeys useful for merge join. An idle thought. There are going to be a lot of cases where different software systems

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

On Friday, November 6, 2015 10:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I think this approach is generally reasonable, but I suggested > parts of it, so may be biased. I would be interested in hearing > the opinions of others. Has anyone taken a close look at what happens if the two

Re: [HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Hi All, > PFA patch to get data sorted from the foreign server (postgres_fdw) > according to the pathkeys useful for merge join. > > For a given base relation (extendable to join when that becomes available

[HACKERS] Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join

Hi All, PFA patch to get data sorted from the foreign server (postgres_fdw) according to the pathkeys useful for merge join. For a given base relation (extendable to join when that becomes available in postgres_fdw), the patch tries to find merge joinable clauses. It then adds paths with pathkeys