Re: FDW pushdown of non-collated functions

2023-10-10 Thread Jean-Christophe Arnu
Hi Ashutosh, Le ven. 6 oct. 2023 à 14:16, Ashutosh Bapat a écrit : > Hi Jean-Christophe, > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 11:30 PM Jean-Christophe Arnu > wrote: > > > > Maybe we could add another condition to the first if statement in order > to allow a “no-collation” function to be pushed down even

Re: FDW pushdown of non-collated functions

2023-10-06 Thread Ashutosh Bapat
Hi Jean-Christophe, On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 11:30 PM Jean-Christophe Arnu wrote: > > Maybe we could add another condition to the first if statement in order to > allow a “no-collation” function to be pushed down even if they have > “collatable” parameters. I’m not sure about the possible regress

Re: FDW pushdown of non-collated functions

2023-10-05 Thread Jean-Christophe Arnu
Dear Hackers, I figured out this email was sent at release time. The worst time to ask for thoughts on a subject IMHO. Anyway, I hope this email will pop the topic over the stack! Thank you! Le ven. 8 sept. 2023 à 16:41, Jean-Christophe Arnu a écrit : > Dear hackers, > > I recently found a weir

FDW pushdown of non-collated functions

2023-09-08 Thread Jean-Christophe Arnu
Dear hackers, I recently found a weird behaviour involving FDW (postgres_fdw) and planning. Here’s a simplified use-case: Given a remote table (say on server2) with the following definition: CREATE TABLE t1( ts timestamp without time zone, x bigint, x2 text ); --Then populate t1 table:IN