From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com> > On 11/24/20 9:45 AM, tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com wrote: > > OTOH, as for the name GetModifyBatchSize() you suggest, I think > GetInsertBatchSize may be better. That is, this API deals with multiple > records in a single INSERT statement. Your GetModifyBatchSize will be > reserved for statement batching when libpq has supported batch/pipelining to > execute multiple INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE statements, as in the following > JDBC batch updates. What do you think? > > > > I don't know. I was really only thinking about batching in the context > of a single DML command, not about batching of multiple commands at the > protocol level. IMHO it's far more likely we'll add support for batching > for DELETE/UPDATE than libpq pipelining, which seems rather different > from how the FDW API works. Which is why I was suggesting to use a name > that would work for all DML commands, not just for inserts.
Right, I can't imagine now how the interaction among the client, server core and FDWs would be regarding the statement batching. So I'll take your suggested name. > Not sure, but I'd guess knowing whether batching is used would be > useful. We only print the single-row SQL query, which kinda gives the > impression that there's no batching. Added in postgres_fdw like "Remote SQL" when EXPLAIN VERBOSE is run. > > Don't worry about this, too. GetMaxBulkInsertTuples() just returns a value > that was already saved in a struct in create_foreign_modify(). > > > > Well, I do worry for two reasons. > > Firstly, the fact that in postgres_fdw the call is cheap does not mean > it'll be like that in every other FDW. Presumably, the other FDWs might > cache it in the struct and do the same thing, of course. > > But the fact that we're calling it over and over for each row kinda > seems like we allow the value to change during execution, but I very > much doubt the code is expecting that. I haven't tried, but assume the > function first returns 10 and then 100. ISTM the code will allocate > ri_Slots with 25 slots, but then we'll try stashing 100 tuples there. > That can't end well. Sure, we can claim it's a bug in the FDW extension, > but it's also due to the API design. You worried about other FDWs than postgres_fdw. That's reasonable. I insisted in other threads that PG developers care only about postgres_fdw, not other FDWs, when designing the FDW interface, but I myself made the same mistake. I made changes so that the executor calls GetModifyBatchSize() once per relation per statement. Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa
v5-0001-Add-bulk-insert-for-foreign-tables.patch
Description: v5-0001-Add-bulk-insert-for-foreign-tables.patch
