On Sat, 28 Nov 2020, 10:10 Tomas Vondra, <tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > > On 11/27/20 7:05 AM, tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com wrote: > > However, the FDW interface as it's implemented today is not designed to > allow that, I believe (we pretty much just invoke the FWD callbacks as > if it was a local AM). It assumes the calls are synchronous, and > redesigning it to work in async way is a much larger/complex patch than > what's being discussed here. > > I do think the FDW extension proposed here (adding the bulk-insert > callback) is useful in general, for two reasons: (a) even if most client > libraries support some sort of pipelining, some don't, and (b) I'd bet > it's still more efficient to send one large insert than pipelining many > individual inserts. > > That being said, I'm against expanding the scope of this patch to also > require redesign of the whole FDW infrastructure - that would likely > mean no such improvement landing in PG14. If the libpq pipelining patch > seems likely to get committed, we can try using it for the bulk insert > callback (instead of the current multi-value stuff). > I totally agree on all points. It was not my intent to expand the scope of this significantly and I really don't want to hold it back. I raised the interface consideration in case it was something easy to accommodate. It's not, so that's done, topic over.
