Message-ID: <548509AA.2090305@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 11:15:06 +0900
From: Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
CC: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>,
 Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
 Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>,
 Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru.hanada@gmail.com>,
 pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: inherit support for foreign tables
References: <545CB4A2.1030303@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CAFjFpRcVLtU6jE8h_N1Rc+Y-pDFbmR7YvBvxOXg6aTFrbZ1Z8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <54645499.7050709@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CAFjFpRcBFVO0YP0nmfygpJOFfWKMkAN1Z8JmrkwyEWXDyMt5Hw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFjFpRcd=F8Jqx+9yioHKVUA71LXBxO41ia61acjzyzQ4MZqVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5476FB4B.9060705@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CAFjFpRd6PR3Seg8D3t-XcXGxXyb+p2WDsk_wBGge7b=PyzP_Qw@mail.gmail.com>
 <547D2B1D.1080107@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CAFjFpRcYN5pMphZ=ATPh9Ya6X4h+fX0LVv1nG9fJZKpL2kopeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <547FD69A.8090308@lab.ntt.co.jp> <20141206170216.GA14211@fetter.org>
In-Reply-To: <20141206170216.GA14211@fetter.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

(2014/12/07 2:02), David Fetter wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 12:35:54PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> But I think
>> there would be another idea.  An example will be shown below.  We show the
>> update commands below the ModifyTable node, not above the corresponding
>> ForeignScan nodes, so maybe less confusing.  If there are no objections of
>> you and others, I'll update the patch this way.
>>
>> postgres=# explain verbose update parent set a = a * 2 where a = 5;
>>                                       QUERY PLAN
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>   Update on public.parent  (cost=0.00..280.77 rows=25 width=10)
>>     On public.ft1
>>       Remote SQL: UPDATE public.mytable_1 SET a = $2 WHERE ctid = $1
>         ^^^^^^^^^^
> It occurs to me that the command generated by the FDW might well not
> be SQL at all, as is the case with file_fdw and anything else that
> talks to a NoSQL engine.
>
> Would it be reasonable to call this "Remote command" or something
> similarly generic?

Yeah, but I'd like to propose that this line is shown by the FDW API 
(ie, ExplainForeignModify) as in non-inherited update cases, so that the 
FDW developer can choose the right name.  As for "On public.ft1", I'd 
like to propose that the FDW API also show that by calling a function 
for that introduced into the PG core (Would it be better to use "For" 
rather than "On"?).

Sorry, my explanation was not enough.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita


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