pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
To: Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Cc: tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com <tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com>
Cc: Andrey V. Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: POC: postgres_fdw insert batching
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 02:11:32 +0100
Message-ID: <4fd4ce5f-d940-065d-6476-db84163fb14e@enterprisedb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALNJ-vTUmTkVPc_+iLAXdoTYo_fYPGMzF2sHdb6=QNsh0Ygh5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20200628151002.7x5laxwpgvkyiu3q@development>
	<16fcfd4c-2d5e-67f7-fa69-9b5d119bac52@enterprisedb.com>
	<TYAPR01MB299026DB0E91E513664C162FFEA30@TYAPR01MB2990.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
	<ba58f299-d50b-f347-4a0f-778cb6ac5588@enterprisedb.com>
	<TYAPR01MB2990A053D902EDF6244090BDFEA30@TYAPR01MB2990.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
	<CA+HiwqH-7+L0B7iNWcAe8auWch=-EnbRkLYMG-27K4rUKsWKOQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<TYAPR01MB29903CBD68C9DA42B67D9EB6FEA30@TYAPR01MB2990.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
	<CA+HiwqGiwxSc8kc0PgPef5DgnP7NTRHVyAZJG3zxY4XBivbfLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<9d94c863-ce7c-ea7f-6b84-834c98929e2f@enterprisedb.com>
	<CA+HiwqHTeQKqRpCA3TGZSCYTVOcUoUdXeSrRfjRRcmT1CfM1oA@mail.gmail.com>
	<7e70a11e-cf5d-2e5f-a802-274c5e0e236b@enterprisedb.com>
	<eb81a728-4ac3-823e-0017-54a9491f5600@enterprisedb.com>
	<CALNJ-vSt7Fn=oj4NxAyCDQQF-1yxmP=LYyQwciApg4L+QdYJQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<3ca9496f-0827-bf21-b709-593de63440a5@enterprisedb.com>
	<CALNJ-vTUmTkVPc_+iLAXdoTYo_fYPGMzF2sHdb6=QNsh0Ygh5Q@mail.gmail.com>



On 1/21/21 2:02 AM, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> Hi, Tomas:
> In my opinion, my patch is a little better.
> Suppose one of the conditions in the if block changes in between the 
> start of loop and the end of the loop:
> 
>       * Determine if the FDW supports batch insert and determine the batch
>       * size (a FDW may support batching, but it may be disabled for the
>       * server/table).
> 
> My patch would reflect that change. I guess this was the reason the if / 
> else block was placed there in the first place.
> 

But can it change? All the loop does is extracting junk attributes from 
the plans, it does not modify anything related to the batching. Or maybe 
I just don't understand what you mean.


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company





view thread (115+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <4fd4ce5f-d940-065d-6476-db84163fb14e@enterprisedb.com>
Permalink:  ../4fd4ce5f-d940-065d-6476-db84163fb14e@enterprisedb.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/4fd4ce5f-d940-065d-6476-db84163fb14e@enterprisedb.com

 · 

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: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com, zyu@yugabyte.com, amitlangote09@gmail.com, tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com, a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru, tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com
  Subject: Re: POC: postgres_fdw insert batching
  In-Reply-To: <4fd4ce5f-d940-065d-6476-db84163fb14e@enterprisedb.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox