On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Ashutosh Bapat < ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 7:21 PM, Ashutosh Bapat > <ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > > Ah sorry, I was wrong about remote_conds. remote_conds and local_conds > > are basically the conditions on the relation being pushed down. > > havingQuals are conditions on a grouped relation so treating them like > > baserestrictinfo or join conditions looks more straight forward, > > rather than having a separate member in PgFdwRelationInfo. So, remote > > havingQuals go into remote_conds and local havingQuals go to > > local_conds. > > Looks like we already do that. Then we have remote_conds, local_conds > which together should be equivalent to havingQual. Storing all those > three doesn't make sense. In future someone may use havingQual instead > of remote_conds/local_conds just because its available and then there > is risk of these three lists going out of sync. > Yep, I see the risk. > > -- > Best Wishes, > Ashutosh Bapat > EnterpriseDB Corporation > The Postgres Database Company > -- Jeevan Chalke Technical Architect, Product Development EnterpriseDB Corporation The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
