On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 7:35 AM, David Rowley <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 13 April 2017 at 11:22, Peter Eisentraut > <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Is this patch considered ready for review as a backpatch candidate? > > Yes, however, the v5 patch is based on master. The v4 patch should > apply to 9.6. Diffing the two patches I see another tiny change to a > comment, of which I think needs re-worded anyway. > > + * This function should usually set FDW options in fpinfo after the join is > + * deemed safe to push down to save some CPU cycles. But We need server > + * specific options like extensions to decide push-down safety. For > + * checking extension shippability, we need foreign server as well. > + */ > > This might be better written as: > > Ordinarily, we might be tempted into delaying the merging of the FDW > options until we've deemed the foreign join to be ok. However, we must > do this before performing this test so that we know which quals can be > evaluated on the foreign server. This may depend on the > shippable_extensions. >
This looks better. Here are patches for master and 9.6. Since join pushdown was supported in 9.6 the patch should be backported to 9.6 as well. Attached is the patch (_96) for 9.6, created by rebasing on 9.6 branch and removing conflict. _v6 is applicable on master. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company
foreign_outerjoin_pushdown_fix_96.patch
Description: Binary data
foreign_outerjoin_pushdown_fix_v6.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
