public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Alexander Pyhalov <[email protected]>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <[email protected]>
Cc: Finnerty, Jim <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Partial aggregates pushdown
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 16:23:24 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoZHtdFEOULVXqhWgSg36R1e1ZEdSKJKb+VzTfRU0HaSZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <TYTPR01MB1095486F5E3103D783AF4748995DFA@TYTPR01MB10954.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<[email protected]>
<TYTPR01MB10954D890D8F729E1BCE42D4F95DDA@TYTPR01MB10954.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<[email protected]>
<TYTPR01MB10954B4C9A791FA9D2BF692F095DCA@TYTPR01MB10954.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<[email protected]>
<TYTPR01MB10954B96601911FE868BF88E895DCA@TYTPR01MB10954.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<OSZPR01MB9424BB7E885791D88B80F7B395B3A@OSZPR01MB9424.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<OSZPR01MB94244C52ABBE67C4A033B5E495B3A@OSZPR01MB9424.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<CA+Tgmobvja+jytj5zcEcYgqzOaeJiqrrJxgqDf1q=3k8FepuWQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CA+TgmoaiH_Na3y17PankZH59EgJWbgdPM-szb1eP6DQoOAMgYg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<TYAPR01MB55149B8569F2FDA262654C4F95BAA@TYAPR01MB5514.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<CA+TgmoYQKF-8vL8sctWuw_dskBiQWcspuNPJuH4ttusuiP529g@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]! gh.pa.us>
<CA+TgmoZHtdFEOULVXqhWgSg36R1e1ZEdSKJKb+VzTfRU0HaSZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 3:59 PM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> TBH, I think this entire proposal is dead in the water. Which is
>> sad from a performance standpoint, but I can't see any way that
>> we would not regret shipping a feature that makes such assumptions.
> I think it's ridiculous to just hold our breath and pretend like this
> feature isn't needed -- it's at least half a decade overdue. We engage
> in endless hand-wringing over local-remote symmetry in cases where
> other systems seem to effortlessly make that assumption and then get
> on with building new features.
Well, one of the founding principles of postgres_fdw was to be able
to talk to PG servers that are not of the same version as yours.
If we break that in the name of performance, we are going to have
a lot of unhappy users. Even the ones who do get the benefit of
the speedup are going to be unhappy when it breaks because they
didn't upgrade local and remote at exactly the same time.
Just because we'd like to have it doesn't make the patch workable
in the real world.
regards, tom lane
view thread (16+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Partial aggregates pushdown
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox