On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 12:45 PM Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> This doesn't get applied cleanly after commit 1d33858406. Here is a
> rebased version of the patch. I also modified the comments a little
> bit. If there are no objections from Antonin or anyone else, I'll
> commit the patch.
Pushed. Than
(2019/02/25 19:59), Etsuro Fujita wrote:
(2019/02/22 23:10), Antonin Houska wrote:
Etsuro Fujita wrote:
As mentioned in the near thread, I think there is another oversight in
the cost estimation for aggregate pushdown paths in postgres_fdw, IIUC.
When costing an aggregate pushdown path using lo
(2019/02/22 23:10), Antonin Houska wrote:
Etsuro Fujita wrote:
As mentioned in the near thread, I think there is another oversight in
the cost estimation for aggregate pushdown paths in postgres_fdw, IIUC.
When costing an aggregate pushdown path using local statistics, we
re-use the estimated
Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> As mentioned in the near thread, I think there is another oversight in
> the cost estimation for aggregate pushdown paths in postgres_fdw, IIUC.
> When costing an aggregate pushdown path using local statistics, we
> re-use the estimated costs of implementing the underlying
As mentioned in the near thread, I think there is another oversight in
the cost estimation for aggregate pushdown paths in postgres_fdw, IIUC.
When costing an aggregate pushdown path using local statistics, we
re-use the estimated costs of implementing the underlying scan/join
relation, cached in
