Re: partition routing layering in nodeModifyTable.c

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, amitdkhan.pg@gmail.com
Date: 2019-08-02T20:30:59Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2019-08-03 05:20:35 +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 3:01 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On 2019-07-31 17:04:38 +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > > I looked into trying to do the things I mentioned above and it seems
> > > to me that revising BeginDirectModify()'s API to receive the
> > > ResultRelInfo directly as Andres suggested might be the best way
> > > forward.  I've implemented that in the attached 0001.
>
> > Fujita-san, do you have any comments on the FDW API change?  Or anybody
> > else?
> >
> > I'm a bit woried about the move of BeginDirectModify() into
> > nodeModifyTable.c - it just seems like an odd control flow to me. Not
> > allowing any intermittent nodes between ForeignScan and ModifyTable also
> > seems like an undesirable restriction for the future. I realize that we
> > already do that for BeginForeignModify() (just btw, that already accepts
> > resultRelInfo as a parameter, so being symmetrical for BeginDirectModify
> > makes sense), but it still seems like the wrong direction to me.
> >
> > The need for that move, I assume, comes from needing knowing the correct
> > ResultRelInfo, correct?  I wonder if we shouldn't instead determine the
> > at plan time (in setrefs.c), somewhat similar to how we determine
> > ModifyTable.resultRelIndex. Doesn't look like that'd be too hard?
>
> I'd vote for that; I created a patch for that [1].
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPmGK15%3DoFHmWNND5vopfokSGfn6jMXVvnHa7K7P49F7k1hWPQ%40mail.gmail.com

Oh, missed that. But that's not quite what I'm proposing. I don't like
ExecFindResultRelInfo at all. What's the point of it? It's introduction
is still an API break - I don't understand why that break is better than
just passing the ResultRelInfo directly to BeginDirectModify()?  I want
to again remark that BeginForeignModify() does get the ResultRelInfo -
it should have been done the same when adding direct modify.

Even if you need the loop - which I don't think is right - it should
live somewhere that individual FDWs don't have to care about.

- Andres



Commits

  1. Fix initialization of es_result_relations in EvalPlanQualStart().

  2. Remove PartitionRoutingInfo struct.

  3. Revise child-to-root tuple conversion map management.

  4. Clean up code to resolve the "root target relation" in nodeModifyTable.c

  5. Refactor code for cross-partition updates to a separate function.

  6. Remove es_result_relation_info from EState.

  7. Include result relation info in direct modify ForeignScan nodes.

  8. Create ResultRelInfos later in InitPlan, index them by RT index.