Re: ModifyTable overheads in generic plans

On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 11:32 AM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 9:05 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
> > A) We could change FDW API so that BeginDirectModify takes the same
> > arguments as BeginForeignModify(). That avoids the assumption that it's
> > a ForeignScan node, because BeginForeignModify() doesn't take
> > ForeignScanState as argument. That would be consistent, which is nice.
> > But I think we'd somehow still need to pass the ResultRelInfo to the
> > corresponding ForeignScan, and I'm not sure how.
>
> Maybe ForeignScan doesn't need to contain any result relation info
> then?  ForeignScan.operation != CMD_SELECT is enough to tell it to
> call IterateDirectModify() as today.
>
> > B) Look up the ResultRelInfo, and call BeginDirectModify(), on the first
> > call to ForeignNext().
> >
> > C) Accept the Assertion. And add an elog() check in the planner for that
> > with a proper error message.
> >
> > I'm leaning towards B), but maybe there's some better solution I didn't
> > think of?   Perhaps changing the API would make sense in any case, it is a
> > bit weird as it is. Backwards-incompatible API changes are not nice, but
> > I don't think there are many FDWs out there that implement the
> > DirectModify functions. And those functions are pretty tightly coupled
> > with the executor and ModifyTable node details anyway, so I don't feel
> > like we can, or need to, guarantee that they stay unchanged across major
> > versions.
>
> B is not too bad, but I tend to prefer doing A too.

How about I update the 0001 patch to implement A?

-- 
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com