Etsuro, * Etsuro Fujita (fujita.ets...@lab.ntt.co.jp) wrote: > Here is an updated version. In this version, the bug has been > fixed, but any regression tests for that hasn't been added, because > I'm not sure that the above way is a good idea and don't have any > other ideas. > > The EXPLAIN output has also been improved as discussed in [1].
While the EXPLAIN output changed, the structure hasn't really changed
from what was discussed previously and there's not been any real
involvment from the core code in what's happening here.
Clearly, the documentation around how to use the FDW API hasn't changed
at all and there's been no additions to it for handling bulk work.
Everything here continues to be done inside of postgres_fdw, which
essentially ignores the prescribed "Update/Delete one tuple" interface
for ExecForeignUpdate/ExecForeignDelete.
I've spent the better part of the past two days trying to reason my way
around that while reviewing this patch and I haven't come out the other
side any happier with this approach than I was back in
20140911153049.gc16...@tamriel.snowman.net.
There are other things that don't look right to me, such as what's going
on at the bottom of push_update_down(), but I don't think there's much
point going into it until we figure out what the core FDW API here
should look like. It might not be all that far from what we have now,
but I don't think we can just ignore the existing, documented, API.
Thanks!
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
