On 2016/12/27 22:03, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
If mergejoin_allowed is true and mergeclauselist is non-NIL but hashclauselist is NIL (that's rare but there can be types has merge operators but not hash operators), we will end up returning NULL. I think we want to create a merge join in that case. I think the order of conditions should be 1. check hashclause_list then create hash join 2. else check if merge allowed, create merge join. It looks like that would cover all the cases, if there aren't any hash clauses, and also no merge clauses, we won't be able to implement a FULL join, so it will get rejected during path creation itself.
Right, maybe we can do that by doing similar things as in match_unsort_outer and/or sort_inner_and_outer. But as you mentioned, the case is rare, so the problem would be whether it's worth complicating the code (and if it's worth, whether we should do that at the first version of the function).
I am wondering whether the easy and possibly correct solution here is to not replace a ForeignPath with fdw_outerpath in GetExistingLocalJoinPath()? If we don't do that, there won't be error building merge join plan and postgresRecheckForeignScan() would correctly route the EPQ checks to the local plan available as outer plan.
That might be fine for PG9.6, but I'd like to propose replacing GetExistingLocalJoinPath with CreateLocalJoinPath for PG10, because (1) GetExistingLocalJoinPath might choose an overkill, merge or hash join path for INNER/LEFT/SEMI/ANTI, not a nestloop join path, which might cause an overhead at EPQ rechecks, and
The reason we chose to pick up an existing path was that the discussion in thread [1] concluded the efficiency of the local plan wasn't a concern for EPQ. Are we now saying something otherwise?
No, I won't. Usually, the overhead would be negligible, but in some cases where there are many concurrent updates, the overhead might not be negligible due to many EPQ rechecks. So it would be better to have an efficient local plan.
(2) choosing a local join path randomly from the rel's pathlist wouldn't be easy to understand.
Easy to understand for whom? Can you please elaborate?
Users. I think the ease of understanding for users is important. Best regards, Etsuro Fujita -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
