Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pkyiL-0004Ld-25 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 02:54:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pkyiJ-0003OC-Lu for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 02:54:03 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pkyiJ-0003O3-CY for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 02:54:03 +0000 Received: from momjian.us ([72.94.173.45]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pkyiH-0003vy-7R for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sat, 08 Apr 2023 02:54:02 +0000 Received: from bruce by momjian.us with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1pkyi9-007kge-HI; Fri, 07 Apr 2023 22:53:53 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2023 22:53:53 -0400 From: Bruce Momjian To: Tom Lane Cc: "Fujii.Yuki@df.MitsubishiElectric.co.jp" , Andres Freund , Alexander Pyhalov , Tomas Vondra , PostgreSQL-development , Julien Rouhaud , Daniel Gustafsson , Ilya Gladyshev Subject: Re: Partial aggregates pushdown Message-ID: References: <20221207185943.g3pkqseovvrk2n2e@awork3.anarazel.de> <3278991.1680918900@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3285493.1680921849@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3285493.1680921849@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 10:44:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 09:55:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Uh, what? Why would we not be able to tell from the remote server's > >> version number whether it has this ability? > > > 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. > > postgres_fdw has no business pushing down calls to non-builtin functions > unless the user has explicitly authorized that via the existing > whitelisting mechanism. I think you're reinventing the wheel, > and not very well. The patch has you assign an option at CREATE AGGREGATE time if it can do push down, and postgres_fdw checks that. What whitelisting mechanism are you talking about? async_capable? -- Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com Embrace your flaws. They make you human, rather than perfect, which you will never be.