public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Alexander Pyhalov <[email protected]>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <[email protected]>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]>
Cc: Ilya Gladyshev <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Partial aggregates pushdown
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2023 22:34:08 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<OS3PR01MB6660CB590AEF3644A9EEE07D95189@OS3PR01MB6660.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<[email protected]>
<OS3PR01MB6660A1DAF6619B9A0BF7D39B95E19@OS3PR01MB6660.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<[email protected]>
<OS3PR01MB6660B900F33523AAD0370D62958F9@OS3PR01MB6660.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<[email protected]>
<OSZPR01MB6662875933E87F37C711B4FC95969@OSZPR01MB6662.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<ZDDIU2fJxZm/[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 09:55:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> writes:
> > What I don't want is an error-prone setup where administrators have to
> > remember what the per-server settings are. Based on your suggestion,
> > let's allow CREATE SERVER to have an option 'enable_async_aggregate' (is
> > that the right name?), which defaults to 'true' for _all_ servers, even
> > those that don't support async aggregates.
>
> Uh, what? Why would we not be able to tell from the remote server's
> version number whether it has this ability?
That was covered here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZC95C0%2BPVhVP3iax%40momjian.us
I think we have three possible cases for aggregate pushdown to FDWs:
1) Postgres built-in aggregate functions
2) Postgres user-defined & extension aggregate functions
3) aggregate functions calls to non-PG FDWs
Your patch handles #1 by checking that the FDW Postgres version is the
--> same as the calling Postgres version. However, it doesn't check for
--> extension versions, and frankly, I don't see how we could implement that
--> cleanly without significant complexity.
The issue is not a mismatch of postgres_fdw versions but the extension
versions and whether the partial aggregate functions exist on the remote
side, e.g., something like a PostGIS upgrade.
--
Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Embrace your flaws. They make you human, rather than perfect,
which you will never be.
view thread (30+ 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]
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