Ok, so that means the workaround is to create an extension with year(date) and
month(date) functions that internally would call extract.
Not ideal but workable I guess.
—
Michał
> On 3 Mar 2024, at 18:42, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> =?utf-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_K=C5=82eczek?= <mic...@kleczek.org> writes:
>> I’ve performed some more tests and it seems expressions with “extract”
>> function are not pushed down at all -
>
> Yeah :-(. I traced through this, and it seems it's a collation
> problem. Internally, that call looks like
> extract('year'::text, date_column)
> The text constant is marked as having collation "default", which means
> that extract() is marked as having input collation "default", and then
> it falls foul of this rule:
>
> * ... An expression is considered safe to send
> * only if all operator/function input collations used in it are traceable to
> * Var(s) of the foreign table. That implies that if the remote server gets
> * a different answer than we do, the foreign table's columns are not marked
> * with collations that match the remote table's columns, which we can
> * consider to be user error.
>
> Of course, extract() doesn't actually care about collation, but
> postgres_fdw has no good way to know that. Nor does it trust the
> remote server to have the same set of collations the local one does,
> so it doesn't want to try to fix this by sending explicit COLLATE
> clauses.
>
> Somebody ought to work on improving that mess sometime. One thought
> that comes to mind is to have a server option authorizing postgres_fdw
> to believe that all local collations exist on the remote side.
>
> regards, tom lane
