Re: [HACKERS] Add support for tuple routing to foreign partitions

Amit Langote <langote_amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-04-03T04:32:17Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2018/04/02 21:26, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2018/03/30 22:28), Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>>
>>> Now we have ON CONFLICT for partitioned tables, which requires the
>>> conversion map to be computed in ExecInitPartitionInfo, so I updated the
>>> patch so that we keep the former step in ExecInitPartitionInfo and
>>> ExecSetupPartitionTupleRouting and so that we just init the FDW in
>>> ExecInitExtraPartitionInfo (changed to ExecInitForeignRouting).  And I
>>> added
>>> comments to ExecInitForeignRouting and ExecPrepareTupleRouting.
>>
>> Hmm, I may be misreading what you mean here ... but as far as I
>> understand, ON CONFLICT does not support foreign tables, does it?
> 
> It doesn't, except for ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING without an inference
> specification.
> 
>> If
>> that is so, I'm not sure why the conversion map would be necessary, if
>> it is for ON CONFLICT alone.
> 
> We wouldn't need that for foreign partitions (When DO NOTHING with an
> inference specification or DO UPDATE on a partitioned table containing
> foreign partitions, the planner would throw an error before we get to
> ExecInitPartitionInfo).

Actually, as you might know, since it is not possible to create an index
on a partitioned table that has a foreign partition, there is no
possibility of supporting any form of ON CONFLICT that requires an
inference specification.

> The reason why I updated the patch that way is
> just to make the patch simple, but on reflection I don't think that's a
> good idea; I think we should delay the map-creation step as well as the
> FDW-initialization step for UPDATE subplan partitions as before for
> improved efficiency for UPDATE-of-partition-key.  However, I don't think
> it'd still be a good idea to delay those steps for partitions created by
> ExecInitPartitionInfo the same way as for the subplan partitions, because
> in that case it'd be better to perform CheckValidResultRel against a
> partition right after we do InitResultRelInfo for the partition in
> ExecInitPartitionInfo, as that would save cycles in cases when the
> partition is considered nonvalid by that check.

It seems like a good idea to perform CheckValidResultRel right after the
InitResultRelInfo in ExecInitPartitionInfo.  However, if the partition is
considered non-valid, that results in an error afaik, so I don't
understand the point about saving cycles.

> So, What I'm thinking is:
> a) for the subplan partitions, we delay those steps as before, and b) for
> the partitions created by ExecInitPartitionInfo, we do that check for a
> partition right after InitResultRelInfo in that function, (and if valid,
> we create a map and initialize the FDW for the partition in that function).

Sounds good to me.  I'm assuming that you're talking about delaying the
is-valid-for-insert-routing check (using CheckValidResultRel) and
parent-to-child map creation for a sub-plan result relation until
ExecPrepareTupleRouting().

On a related note, I wonder if it'd be a good idea to rename the flag
ri_PartitionIsValid to something that signifies that we only need it to be
true if we want to do tuple routing (aka insert) using it.  Maybe,
ri_PartitionReadyForRouting or ri_PartitionReadyForInsert.  I'm afraid
that ri_PartitionIsValid is a bit ambiguous, although I'm not saying the
name options I'm suggesting are the best.

Thanks,
Amit



Commits

  1. Allow insert and update tuple routing and COPY for foreign tables.

  2. Refactor PgFdwModifyState creation/destruction into separate functions.