Thread

1. Re: Function scan FDW pushdown

   Alexander Pyhalov <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru> — 2026-05-06T06:59:15Z

   Alexander Pyhalov писал(а) 2026-03-18 15:08:
   > Álvaro Herrera писал(а) 2025-08-05 22:55:
   >> Hello,
   >> 
   >> On 2024-Nov-05, g.kashkin@postgrespro.ru wrote:
   >> 
   >>> This is a long-overdue follow-up to the original patch.
   >>> Note that this patch contains only the changes required for
   >>> function scan pushdown, examples and code related to asymmetric
   >>> join are dropped.
   >> 
   >> I've marked this as returned with feedback, as several months have
   >> passed without a further version; the current one has a number of
   >> gotchas, including some problematic coding detected by a compiler
   >> warning, as well as unfinished design:
   >> 
   >>> The issue with setting newrte->functions to NIL still persists.
   >>> [...]
   >>> I am aware that the rte->functions will now be copied even on
   >>> instances that don't utilize a FDW, but I don't see a way to solve 
   >>> it.
   >>> Any suggestions are welcome.
   >> 
   >> Feel free to reopen this CF entry[1] once you're able to figure this 
   >> out.
   >> 
   >> [1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/5470/
   > 
   > Hi.
   > I've updated patch with latest fixes, including more checks for corner 
   > cases.
   > Now function pushdown is forbidden for functions, returning sets of 
   > complex types
   > or which arguments contain parameters. Together with Gleb Kashkin we've 
   > also moved
   > information about functions to foreign scan private data. The tricky 
   > part here was
   > to get correct rti mappings after setrefs, but it seems we've managed 
   > to do it.
   > Also I've removed some changes, which are required only in presence of 
   > asymmetric
   > join.
   > 
   > Of course, I'm targeting PostgreSQL 20.
   
   Hi.  Updated patch to apply cleanly after recent changes.
   -- 
   Best regards,
   Alexander Pyhalov,
   Postgres Professional

2. Re: Function scan FDW pushdown

   solaimurugan vellaipandiyan <drsolaimurugan.v@gmail.com> — 2026-05-08T05:17:20Z

   Hi,
   
   I tested the v3 patch on current master using a postgres_fdw loopback setup.
   
   The patch mostly applied cleanly for me, with only a small manual
   conflict resolution needed in postgres_fdw.c (missing
   optimizer/clauses.h include). PostgreSQL built and started
   successfully after that.
   
   For testing, I used queries involving generate_series() together with
   a foreign table, for example:
   
   SELECT *
   FROM ft
   JOIN generate_series(1,3) g
   ON ft.id = g;
   
   I also tried:
   1. implicit join syntax
   2. LATERAL usage
   3. disabling hashjoin/mergejoin to force different join paths
   
   In all cases, the plans still showed a local Function Scan and local
   join execution. The Remote SQL remained:
   SELECT id FROM public.localtab
   So I wasn't able to observe function scan pushdown with these testcases.
   Maybe I'm missing a query shape or planner condition required to
   trigger the new functionality. It would help to know which cases are
   currently expected to be pushed down.
   
   Regards,
   Solaimurugan V
   
   
   
   

3. Re: Function scan FDW pushdown

   Alexander Pyhalov <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru> — 2026-05-08T06:03:32Z

   solaimurugan vellaipandiyan писал(а) 2026-05-08 08:17:
   > Hi,
   > 
   > I tested the v3 patch on current master using a postgres_fdw loopback 
   > setup.
   > 
   > The patch mostly applied cleanly for me, with only a small manual
   > conflict resolution needed in postgres_fdw.c (missing
   > optimizer/clauses.h include). PostgreSQL built and started
   > successfully after that.
   > 
   > For testing, I used queries involving generate_series() together with
   > a foreign table, for example:
   > 
   > SELECT *
   > FROM ft
   > JOIN generate_series(1,3) g
   > ON ft.id = g;
   > 
   > I also tried:
   > 1. implicit join syntax
   > 2. LATERAL usage
   > 3. disabling hashjoin/mergejoin to force different join paths
   > 
   > In all cases, the plans still showed a local Function Scan and local
   > join execution. The Remote SQL remained:
   > SELECT id FROM public.localtab
   > So I wasn't able to observe function scan pushdown with these 
   > testcases.
   > Maybe I'm missing a query shape or planner condition required to
   > trigger the new functionality. It would help to know which cases are
   > currently expected to be pushed down.
   > 
   > Regards,
   > Solaimurugan V
   
   
   Hi. Of course, this depends on foreign scan cost. Foreign join should be 
   cheaper than local one.
   The cost of foreign join consists from
   1) cost of evaluating inner and outer part of the join,
   2) total costs of retreiving rows (nrows * cost of qual evaluation),
   3) cost of preparing to evaluate quals (remote and local),
   4) fdw_startup_cost
   5) (fdw_tuple_cost + cpu_tuple_cost) * retrieved_rows.
   Look at estimate_path_cost_size().
   
   The cost of retreiving foreign rows consists from
   1) cost of estimating baserestrictinfos
   2) cost of remote sequential scan
   3) cost of evaluating foreign relation target list
   4) fdw_startup_cost
   5) (fdw_tuple_cost + cpu_tuple_cost) * retrieved_rows.
   
   If we compare function scan pushdown for foreign table and function with 
   foreign join pushdown of two foreign tables, we don't have  two 
   penalties from fdw_startup_cost here. So, for function scan pushdown to 
   be chosen, it should filter out significant part of data, as data 
   transfer cost likely dominates in foreign scan costs estimation. You can 
   see this on the following toy example.
   
   
   CREATE EXTENSION postgres_fdw;
   
   SELECT current_database() AS current_database,
      current_setting('port') AS current_port \gset
   CREATE SERVER loopback FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER postgres_fdw
            OPTIONS (dbname :'current_database', port :'current_port');
   CREATE USER MAPPING FOR current_user SERVER loopback;
   CREATE table t1 (i int, j text);
   create foreign table ft1 (i int, j text) server loopback options 
   (table_name 't1');
   
   -- No adequate data about relation, we assume 1000+ rows in table, so 
   foreign join is chosen.
   
   #  explain select * from ft1 , generate_series(1,10) g where i=g;
                          QUERY PLAN
   ------------------------------------------------------
     Foreign Scan  (cost=100.00..172.16 rows=68 width=40)
       Relations: (ft1) INNER JOIN (generate_series() g)
   (2 rows)
   
   -- We have actual data, there's no use to push down foreign join
   postgres=# analyze ft1;
   ANALYZE
   postgres=# explain select * from ft1 , generate_series(1,10) g where 
   i=g;
                                     QUERY PLAN
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Hash Join  (cost=100.02..100.16 rows=1 width=40)
       Hash Cond: (g.g = ft1.i)
       ->  Function Scan on generate_series g  (cost=0.00..0.10 rows=10 
   width=4)
       ->  Hash  (cost=100.00..100.00 rows=1 width=36)
             ->  Foreign Scan on ft1  (cost=100.00..100.00 rows=1 width=36)
   
   -- If we had two foreign scans below join here, its startup cost would 
   be more than 2*100.
   -- But evaluating function locally saves us from such great penalty.
   -- Let's add some actual data.
   
   postgres=# insert into ft1 select i, 'test'||i from 
   generate_series(1,1000) i;
   INSERT 0 1000
   postgres=# analyze ft1;
   ANALYZE
   
   -- Now we have actual data, transfering 1000 rows (plain foreign scan 
   costs ~ 410) and joining locally is more expensive than doing
   -- remote join and transfering 10 rows.
   
   postgres=# explain select * from ft1 , generate_series(1,10) g where 
   i=g;
                          QUERY PLAN
   ------------------------------------------------------
     Foreign Scan  (cost=100.00..143.20 rows=10 width=15)
       Relations: (ft1) INNER JOIN (generate_series() g)
   (2 rows)
   
   
   -- 
   Best regards,
   Alexander Pyhalov,
   Postgres Professional
   
   
   
   

4. Re: Function scan FDW pushdown

   Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> — 2026-05-10T22:22:58Z

   Hi!
   
   On Fri, May 8, 2026 at 9:03 AM Alexander Pyhalov
   <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
   >
   > solaimurugan vellaipandiyan писал(а) 2026-05-08 08:17:
   > > Hi,
   > >
   > > I tested the v3 patch on current master using a postgres_fdw loopback
   > > setup.
   > >
   > > The patch mostly applied cleanly for me, with only a small manual
   > > conflict resolution needed in postgres_fdw.c (missing
   > > optimizer/clauses.h include). PostgreSQL built and started
   > > successfully after that.
   > >
   > > For testing, I used queries involving generate_series() together with
   > > a foreign table, for example:
   > >
   > > SELECT *
   > > FROM ft
   > > JOIN generate_series(1,3) g
   > > ON ft.id = g;
   > >
   > > I also tried:
   > > 1. implicit join syntax
   > > 2. LATERAL usage
   > > 3. disabling hashjoin/mergejoin to force different join paths
   > >
   > > In all cases, the plans still showed a local Function Scan and local
   > > join execution. The Remote SQL remained:
   > > SELECT id FROM public.localtab
   > > So I wasn't able to observe function scan pushdown with these
   > > testcases.
   > > Maybe I'm missing a query shape or planner condition required to
   > > trigger the new functionality. It would help to know which cases are
   > > currently expected to be pushed down.
   > >
   > > Regards,
   > > Solaimurugan V
   >
   >
   > Hi. Of course, this depends on foreign scan cost. Foreign join should be
   > cheaper than local one.
   > The cost of foreign join consists from
   > 1) cost of evaluating inner and outer part of the join,
   > 2) total costs of retreiving rows (nrows * cost of qual evaluation),
   > 3) cost of preparing to evaluate quals (remote and local),
   > 4) fdw_startup_cost
   > 5) (fdw_tuple_cost + cpu_tuple_cost) * retrieved_rows.
   > Look at estimate_path_cost_size().
   >
   > The cost of retreiving foreign rows consists from
   > 1) cost of estimating baserestrictinfos
   > 2) cost of remote sequential scan
   > 3) cost of evaluating foreign relation target list
   > 4) fdw_startup_cost
   > 5) (fdw_tuple_cost + cpu_tuple_cost) * retrieved_rows.
   >
   > If we compare function scan pushdown for foreign table and function with
   > foreign join pushdown of two foreign tables, we don't have  two
   > penalties from fdw_startup_cost here. So, for function scan pushdown to
   > be chosen, it should filter out significant part of data, as data
   > transfer cost likely dominates in foreign scan costs estimation. You can
   > see this on the following toy example.
   >
   >
   > CREATE EXTENSION postgres_fdw;
   >
   > SELECT current_database() AS current_database,
   >    current_setting('port') AS current_port \gset
   > CREATE SERVER loopback FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER postgres_fdw
   >          OPTIONS (dbname :'current_database', port :'current_port');
   > CREATE USER MAPPING FOR current_user SERVER loopback;
   > CREATE table t1 (i int, j text);
   > create foreign table ft1 (i int, j text) server loopback options
   > (table_name 't1');
   >
   > -- No adequate data about relation, we assume 1000+ rows in table, so
   > foreign join is chosen.
   >
   > #  explain select * from ft1 , generate_series(1,10) g where i=g;
   >                        QUERY PLAN
   > ------------------------------------------------------
   >   Foreign Scan  (cost=100.00..172.16 rows=68 width=40)
   >     Relations: (ft1) INNER JOIN (generate_series() g)
   > (2 rows)
   >
   > -- We have actual data, there's no use to push down foreign join
   > postgres=# analyze ft1;
   > ANALYZE
   > postgres=# explain select * from ft1 , generate_series(1,10) g where
   > i=g;
   >                                   QUERY PLAN
   > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   >   Hash Join  (cost=100.02..100.16 rows=1 width=40)
   >     Hash Cond: (g.g = ft1.i)
   >     ->  Function Scan on generate_series g  (cost=0.00..0.10 rows=10
   > width=4)
   >     ->  Hash  (cost=100.00..100.00 rows=1 width=36)
   >           ->  Foreign Scan on ft1  (cost=100.00..100.00 rows=1 width=36)
   >
   > -- If we had two foreign scans below join here, its startup cost would
   > be more than 2*100.
   > -- But evaluating function locally saves us from such great penalty.
   > -- Let's add some actual data.
   >
   > postgres=# insert into ft1 select i, 'test'||i from
   > generate_series(1,1000) i;
   > INSERT 0 1000
   > postgres=# analyze ft1;
   > ANALYZE
   >
   > -- Now we have actual data, transfering 1000 rows (plain foreign scan
   > costs ~ 410) and joining locally is more expensive than doing
   > -- remote join and transfering 10 rows.
   >
   > postgres=# explain select * from ft1 , generate_series(1,10) g where
   > i=g;
   >                        QUERY PLAN
   > ------------------------------------------------------
   >   Foreign Scan  (cost=100.00..143.20 rows=10 width=15)
   >     Relations: (ft1) INNER JOIN (generate_series() g)
   > (2 rows)
   
   Thank you for your work on improving this matter.  I've updated the
   patch attempting to address major concerns raised in this thread.
   
   1) Limit the support of the pushdown with immutable functions.  This
   must eliminate the risk of different evaluation results on different
   servers (as long as immutable is set correctly).
   2) Store pointer to stub fpinfo for the function in the absorbing
   foreign table.  Thus, if there are multiple foreign tables, which
   could absorb the function, both ways can be considered.  This is
   illustrated in the regression tests: the decision on which foreign
   table would absorb the function can be changed depending on clause
   selectivity.
   
   ------
   Regards,
   Alexander Korotkov
   Supabase
   

5. Re: Function scan FDW pushdown

   solaimurugan vellaipandiyan <drsolaimurugan.v@gmail.com> — 2026-05-11T06:01:04Z

   Hi,
   
   Thanks for the detailed explanation and the example queries. That
   helped me better understand the costing behavior behind the pushdown
   decisions.
   
   I tested the new v4 patch on current master using a postgres_fdw
   loopback setup with local table t1 and foreign table ft1.
   
   Here’s what I observed:
   - Before ANALYZE, the planner chose a local Hash Join with separate
   Foreign Scan and Function  Scan nodes.
   - After running ANALYZE on the empty table, it still preferred local
   execution, which makes sense based on the costing explanation.
   - I then inserted 1000 rows into t1, ran ANALYZE again, and repeated the test.
   
   Even after that, I still got a local Hash Join plan like:
   Hash Join
    - Foreign Scan on ft1
    - Function Scan on generate_series
   I wasn’t able to observe the pushed-down Foreign Scan plan shown in
   the example from the thread.
   
   The patch itself applied and built successfully on my side, so this
   may just be due to planner cost differences or environment-specific
   behavior on current master.
   
   Regards,
   Solaimurugan V
   
   
   
   

6. Re: Function scan FDW pushdown

   Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> — 2026-05-11T12:02:24Z

   On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 9:01 AM solaimurugan vellaipandiyan <
   drsolaimurugan.v@gmail.com> wrote:
   > Thanks for the detailed explanation and the example queries. That
   > helped me better understand the costing behavior behind the pushdown
   > decisions.
   >
   > I tested the new v4 patch on current master using a postgres_fdw
   > loopback setup with local table t1 and foreign table ft1.
   >
   > Here’s what I observed:
   > - Before ANALYZE, the planner chose a local Hash Join with separate
   > Foreign Scan and Function  Scan nodes.
   > - After running ANALYZE on the empty table, it still preferred local
   > execution, which makes sense based on the costing explanation.
   > - I then inserted 1000 rows into t1, ran ANALYZE again, and repeated the
   test.
   >
   > Even after that, I still got a local Hash Join plan like:
   > Hash Join
   >  - Foreign Scan on ft1
   >  - Function Scan on generate_series
   > I wasn’t able to observe the pushed-down Foreign Scan plan shown in
   > the example from the thread.
   >
   > The patch itself applied and built successfully on my side, so this
   > may just be due to planner cost differences or environment-specific
   > behavior on current master.
   
   This also comes from the cost model.  Check this example.
   
   # CREATE TABLE t1 (id int);
   # INSERT INTO t1 SELECT g FROM generate_series(1, 1000) g;
   # CREATE FOREIGN TABLE ft1 (id int) SERVER loopback OPTIONS (table_name
   't1');
   # ANALYZE t1;
   # ANALYZE ft1;
   
   By default the local join is selected.
   
   # EXPLAIN (VERBOSE, COSTS ON)
   SELECT * FROM ft1, generate_series(1, 100) AS g(id)
   WHERE ft1.id = g.id;
                                             QUERY PLAN
   
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hash Join  (cost=102.25..332.00 rows=100 width=8)
      Output: ft1.id, g.id
      Hash Cond: (ft1.id = g.id)
      ->  Foreign Scan on public.ft1  (cost=100.00..325.00 rows=1000 width=4)
            Output: ft1.id
            Remote SQL: SELECT id FROM public.t1
      ->  Hash  (cost=1.00..1.00 rows=100 width=4)
            Output: g.id
            ->  Function Scan on pg_catalog.generate_series g
    (cost=0.00..1.00 rows=100 width=4)
                  Output: g.id
                  Function Call: generate_series(1, 100)
   (11 rows)
   
   However, we can force remote join using enable_* options. You can see it
   has higher cost.  This is because estimate_path_cost_size() expects join
   operator to be applied to the whole cross-product.
   
   # SET enable_hashjoin = off;
   # SET enable_mergejoin = off;
   # SET enable_nestloop = off;
   # EXPLAIN (VERBOSE, COSTS ON)
   SELECT * FROM ft1, generate_series(1, 100) AS g(id)
   WHERE ft1.id = g.id;
                                             QUERY PLAN
   
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hash Join  (cost=102.25..332.00 rows=100 width=8)
      Output: ft1.id, g.id
      Hash Cond: (ft1.id = g.id)
      ->  Foreign Scan on public.ft1  (cost=100.00..325.00 rows=1000 width=4)
            Output: ft1.id
            Remote SQL: SELECT id FROM public.t1
      ->  Hash  (cost=1.00..1.00 rows=100 width=4)
            Output: g.id
            ->  Function Scan on pg_catalog.generate_series g
    (cost=0.00..1.00 rows=100 width=4)
                  Output: g.id
                  Function Call: generate_series(1, 100)
   (11 rows)
   # RESET enable_hashjoin;
   # RESET enable_mergejoin;
   # RESET enable_nestloop;
   
   Also, this can be fixed using remote estimate.  You also can check that v3
   regression tests by Pyhalov use this approach as well.
   
   # ALTER FOREIGN TABLE ft1 OPTIONS (ADD use_remote_estimate 'true');
   # EXPLAIN (VERBOSE, COSTS ON)
   SELECT * FROM ft1, generate_series(1, 100) AS g(id)
   WHERE ft1.id = g.id;
                                                          QUERY PLAN
   
   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Foreign Scan  (cost=102.25..143.00 rows=100 width=8)
      Output: ft1.id, g.id
      Relations: (public.ft1) INNER JOIN (Function g)
      Remote SQL: SELECT r1.id, f2.c1 FROM (public.t1 r1 INNER JOIN
   generate_series(1, 100) f2(c1) ON (((r1.id = f2.c1))))
   (4 rows)
   
   Thus, I don't see it to be a problem of this specific patch.  I think this
   is general inaccuracy of postgres_fdw cost model.
   
   ------
   Regards,
   Alexander Korotkov
   Supabase
   

7. Re: Function scan FDW pushdown

   Alexander Pyhalov <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru> — 2026-05-12T08:09:23Z

   Alexander Korotkov писал(а) 2026-05-11 01:22:
   > Hi!
   > 
   > On Fri, May 8, 2026 at 9:03 AM Alexander Pyhalov
   > <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
   >> 
   >> solaimurugan vellaipandiyan писал(а) 2026-05-08 08:17:
   >> > Hi,
   >> >
   >> > I tested the v3 patch on current master using a postgres_fdw loopback
   >> > setup.
   >> >
   >> > The patch mostly applied cleanly for me, with only a small manual
   >> > conflict resolution needed in postgres_fdw.c (missing
   >> > optimizer/clauses.h include). PostgreSQL built and started
   >> > successfully after that.
   >> >
   >> > For testing, I used queries involving generate_series() together with
   >> > a foreign table, for example:
   >> >
   >> > SELECT *
   >> > FROM ft
   >> > JOIN generate_series(1,3) g
   >> > ON ft.id = g;
   >> >
   >> > I also tried:
   >> > 1. implicit join syntax
   >> > 2. LATERAL usage
   >> > 3. disabling hashjoin/mergejoin to force different join paths
   >> >
   >> > In all cases, the plans still showed a local Function Scan and local
   >> > join execution. The Remote SQL remained:
   >> > SELECT id FROM public.localtab
   >> > So I wasn't able to observe function scan pushdown with these
   >> > testcases.
   >> > Maybe I'm missing a query shape or planner condition required to
   >> > trigger the new functionality. It would help to know which cases are
   >> > currently expected to be pushed down.
   >> >
   >> > Regards,
   >> > Solaimurugan V
   >> 
   >> 
   >> Hi. Of course, this depends on foreign scan cost. Foreign join should 
   >> be
   >> cheaper than local one.
   >> The cost of foreign join consists from
   >> 1) cost of evaluating inner and outer part of the join,
   >> 2) total costs of retreiving rows (nrows * cost of qual evaluation),
   >> 3) cost of preparing to evaluate quals (remote and local),
   >> 4) fdw_startup_cost
   >> 5) (fdw_tuple_cost + cpu_tuple_cost) * retrieved_rows.
   >> Look at estimate_path_cost_size().
   >> 
   >> The cost of retreiving foreign rows consists from
   >> 1) cost of estimating baserestrictinfos
   >> 2) cost of remote sequential scan
   >> 3) cost of evaluating foreign relation target list
   >> 4) fdw_startup_cost
   >> 5) (fdw_tuple_cost + cpu_tuple_cost) * retrieved_rows.
   >> 
   >> If we compare function scan pushdown for foreign table and function 
   >> with
   >> foreign join pushdown of two foreign tables, we don't have  two
   >> penalties from fdw_startup_cost here. So, for function scan pushdown 
   >> to
   >> be chosen, it should filter out significant part of data, as data
   >> transfer cost likely dominates in foreign scan costs estimation. You 
   >> can
   >> see this on the following toy example.
   >> 
   >> 
   >> CREATE EXTENSION postgres_fdw;
   >> 
   >> SELECT current_database() AS current_database,
   >>    current_setting('port') AS current_port \gset
   >> CREATE SERVER loopback FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER postgres_fdw
   >>          OPTIONS (dbname :'current_database', port :'current_port');
   >> CREATE USER MAPPING FOR current_user SERVER loopback;
   >> CREATE table t1 (i int, j text);
   >> create foreign table ft1 (i int, j text) server loopback options
   >> (table_name 't1');
   >> 
   >> -- No adequate data about relation, we assume 1000+ rows in table, so
   >> foreign join is chosen.
   >> 
   >> #  explain select * from ft1 , generate_series(1,10) g where i=g;
   >>                        QUERY PLAN
   >> ------------------------------------------------------
   >>   Foreign Scan  (cost=100.00..172.16 rows=68 width=40)
   >>     Relations: (ft1) INNER JOIN (generate_series() g)
   >> (2 rows)
   >> 
   >> -- We have actual data, there's no use to push down foreign join
   >> postgres=# analyze ft1;
   >> ANALYZE
   >> postgres=# explain select * from ft1 , generate_series(1,10) g where
   >> i=g;
   >>                                   QUERY PLAN
   >> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   >>   Hash Join  (cost=100.02..100.16 rows=1 width=40)
   >>     Hash Cond: (g.g = ft1.i)
   >>     ->  Function Scan on generate_series g  (cost=0.00..0.10 rows=10
   >> width=4)
   >>     ->  Hash  (cost=100.00..100.00 rows=1 width=36)
   >>           ->  Foreign Scan on ft1  (cost=100.00..100.00 rows=1 
   >> width=36)
   >> 
   >> -- If we had two foreign scans below join here, its startup cost would
   >> be more than 2*100.
   >> -- But evaluating function locally saves us from such great penalty.
   >> -- Let's add some actual data.
   >> 
   >> postgres=# insert into ft1 select i, 'test'||i from
   >> generate_series(1,1000) i;
   >> INSERT 0 1000
   >> postgres=# analyze ft1;
   >> ANALYZE
   >> 
   >> -- Now we have actual data, transfering 1000 rows (plain foreign scan
   >> costs ~ 410) and joining locally is more expensive than doing
   >> -- remote join and transfering 10 rows.
   >> 
   >> postgres=# explain select * from ft1 , generate_series(1,10) g where
   >> i=g;
   >>                        QUERY PLAN
   >> ------------------------------------------------------
   >>   Foreign Scan  (cost=100.00..143.20 rows=10 width=15)
   >>     Relations: (ft1) INNER JOIN (generate_series() g)
   >> (2 rows)
   > 
   > Thank you for your work on improving this matter.  I've updated the
   > patch attempting to address major concerns raised in this thread.
   > 
   > 1) Limit the support of the pushdown with immutable functions.  This
   > must eliminate the risk of different evaluation results on different
   > servers (as long as immutable is set correctly).
   > 2) Store pointer to stub fpinfo for the function in the absorbing
   > foreign table.  Thus, if there are multiple foreign tables, which
   > could absorb the function, both ways can be considered.  This is
   > illustrated in the regression tests: the decision on which foreign
   > table would absorb the function can be changed depending on clause
   > selectivity.
   > 
   > ------
   > Regards,
   > Alexander Korotkov
   > Supabase
   
   Hi.
   I've tested updated patch a bit.
   
   1) deparseColumnRef() doesn't account for whole row vars.
   In queries like
   
   UPDATE remote_tbl r SET b=5 FROM UNNEST(array[box '((2,3),(-2,-3))']) AS 
   t (bx) WHERE r.a = area(t.bx)
   
   it fails with assert that varattno should be > 0. When we lock 
   non-relation RTE, we select whole row var, and we have to deparse it for 
   function RTE.
   
   You've removed check for function return type. This seems to be 
   dangerous. Old example
   
   CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION f_ret_record() RETURNS record AS $$ SELECT 
   (1,2)::record $$ language SQL IMMUTABLE;
   ALTER EXTENSION postgres_fdw ADD function f_ret_record();
   EXPLAIN (VERBOSE, COSTS OFF)
   SELECT s FROM remote_tbl rt, f_ret_record() AS s(a int, b int)
   WHERE s.a = rt.a;
   
   fails with
   
   ERROR:  a column definition list is required for functions returning 
   "record"
   
   2) postgresBeginForeignScan() can step on function RTE, and doesn't know 
   what to do with it:
   SELECT * FROM unnest(array[2,3,4]) n, remote_tbl r WHERE r.a = n;
   ERROR:  cache lookup failed for foreign table 0
   
   So, we need to look for the first RTE_RELATION, as in older patch 
   version.
   
   3) A lot of complexity in the old patch version was in making it 
   possible to find out RTE_FUNCTION attribute types after planing, as it's 
   necessary to correctly handle joins. In this version 
   get_tupdesc_for_join_scan_tuples() doesn't handle function RTEs.  This 
   means, when we try to find out type for attribute types for joins, we'll 
   get errors. This can be seen in queries like
   
   UPDATE remote_tbl r SET b=CASE WHEN random()>=0 THEN 5 ELSE 0 END FROM 
   UNNEST(array[box '((2,3),(-2,-3))']) AS t (bx) WHERE r.a = area(t.bx)
     RETURNING a,b;
   
   Now it fails on earlier stages (with "column f2.c0 does not exist"), but 
   if we fix it, we'll get something like
   "ERROR:  input of anonymous composite types is not implemented"
   
   Overall, function_rte_pushdown_ok() now allows more strange 
   constructions. Could it skip Vars from outside of joinrel->relids? Can 
   we safely ship function with parameters in arguments? I'm not sure.
   
   4) Why do we restrict list_length(rte->functions) to 1? The main reason 
   for supporting several rte->functions was to allow pushdown of UNNEST() 
   with several arrays, which is used by HammerDB tproc-c test.
   
   5) We can support pushing down joins of foreign tables and another RTE 
   types, for example, VALUES. But with new specific way of handling 
   RTE_FUNCTIONS in core, this requires both changes to 
   set_foreign_rel_properties() and postgres_fdw. Not sure, if this is a 
   big problem, but at least is worth mentioning .
   
   -- 
   Best regards,
   Alexander Pyhalov,
   Postgres Professional
   
   
   
   

8. Re: Function scan FDW pushdown

   Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> — 2026-05-18T10:34:21Z

   Hi, Alexander!
   
   The revised patch is attached.
   
   On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 11:09 AM Alexander Pyhalov
   <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
   > 1) deparseColumnRef() doesn't account for whole row vars.
   > In queries like
   >
   > UPDATE remote_tbl r SET b=5 FROM UNNEST(array[box '((2,3),(-2,-3))']) AS
   > t (bx) WHERE r.a = area(t.bx)
   >
   > it fails with assert that varattno should be > 0. When we lock
   > non-relation RTE, we select whole row var, and we have to deparse it for
   > function RTE.
   >
   > You've removed check for function return type. This seems to be
   > dangerous. Old example
   >
   > CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION f_ret_record() RETURNS record AS $$ SELECT
   > (1,2)::record $$ language SQL IMMUTABLE;
   > ALTER EXTENSION postgres_fdw ADD function f_ret_record();
   > EXPLAIN (VERBOSE, COSTS OFF)
   > SELECT s FROM remote_tbl rt, f_ret_record() AS s(a int, b int)
   > WHERE s.a = rt.a;
   >
   > fails with
   >
   > ERROR:  a column definition list is required for functions returning
   > "record"
   
   function_rte_pushdown_ok() now calls get_expr_result_type() and
   rejects anything that isn't TYPEFUNC_SCALAR (also RECORDOID/VOIDOID),
   so f_ret_record() no longer reaches the remote side.
   deparseColumnRef() now handles varattno == 0 for RTE_FUNCTION and
   emits ROW(f<rti>.c1, ..., f<rti>.c<N>) from rte->eref->colnames.
   
   > 2) postgresBeginForeignScan() can step on function RTE, and doesn't know
   > what to do with it:
   > SELECT * FROM unnest(array[2,3,4]) n, remote_tbl r WHERE r.a = n;
   > ERROR:  cache lookup failed for foreign table 0
   >
   > So, we need to look for the first RTE_RELATION, as in older patch
   > version.
   
   The scanrelid == 0 branch in postgresBeginForeignScan() now scans
   fs_base_relids until it finds an RTE_RELATION.  An explicit
   elog(ERROR) guards the (theoretically impossible) case where no
   foreign RTE is found.
   
   > 3) A lot of complexity in the old patch version was in making it
   > possible to find out RTE_FUNCTION attribute types after planing, as it's
   > necessary to correctly handle joins. In this version
   > get_tupdesc_for_join_scan_tuples() doesn't handle function RTEs.  This
   > means, when we try to find out type for attribute types for joins, we'll
   > get errors. This can be seen in queries like
   >
   > UPDATE remote_tbl r SET b=CASE WHEN random()>=0 THEN 5 ELSE 0 END FROM
   > UNNEST(array[box '((2,3),(-2,-3))']) AS t (bx) WHERE r.a = area(t.bx)
   >   RETURNING a,b;
   >
   > Now it fails on earlier stages (with "column f2.c0 does not exist"), but
   > if we fix it, we'll get something like
   > "ERROR:  input of anonymous composite types is not implemented"
   >
   > Overall, function_rte_pushdown_ok() now allows more strange
   > constructions. Could it skip Vars from outside of joinrel->relids? Can
   > we safely ship function with parameters in arguments? I'm not sure.
   
   Restored the per-function metadata you had in v2/v3.
   FdwScanPrivateFunctions (list of (funcid, funcrettype, funccollation)
   indexed by RTI-offset) and FdwScanPrivateMinRTIndex are now saved in
   fdw_private by postgresGetForeignPlan().
   get_tupdesc_for_join_scan_tuples() now has an RTE_FUNCTION branch that
   rebuilds the tuple descriptor from this metadata, exactly as in your
   patch.
   
   > 4) Why do we restrict list_length(rte->functions) to 1? The main reason
   > for supporting several rte->functions was to allow pushdown of UNNEST()
   > with several arrays, which is used by HammerDB tproc-c test.
   
   function_rte_pushdown_ok() now loops over rte->functions and applies
   the same checks to every member.  deparseFunctionRangeTblRef() emits
   ROWS FROM (f1(), f2(), ...) AS f<rti>(c1, c2, ...) with the
   column-name list covering the concatenation of every function's
   columns, in the order they appear.
   
   > 5) We can support pushing down joins of foreign tables and another RTE
   > types, for example, VALUES. But with new specific way of handling
   > RTE_FUNCTIONS in core, this requires both changes to
   > set_foreign_rel_properties() and postgres_fdw. Not sure, if this is a
   > big problem, but at least is worth mentioning .
   
   I've kept the planner-side change minimal:
   set_foreign_rel_properties() propagates fdwroutine onto a joinrel
   pairing a foreign rel with an RTE_FUNCTION rel, so the standard
   GetForeignJoinPaths callback gets invoked.  No new FDW callback was
   needed.  This is also the reason the planner-side fpinfo of the
   function side lives on the joinrel
   (outer_func_fpinfo/inner_func_fpinfo fields added to
   PgFdwRelationInfo) rather than on the function
   RelOptInfo->fdw_private: the same RTE_FUNCTION rel can be paired
   independently with foreign rels from several servers.  Extending the
   same scheme to RTE_VALUES / RTE_CTE is, I agree, worth doing late. It
   would be a one branch addition to set_foreign_rel_properties() plus an
   FDW-side shippability check analogous to function_rte_pushdown_ok().
   
   A few extra changes to the patch:
   - LATERAL function RTEs are explicitly rejected in
   function_rte_pushdown_ok() (returns false when rel->lateral_relids is
   non-empty).
   - Outer joins (LEFT/RIGHT/FULL) and SEMI joins fall through to the
   existing !fpinfo_o || !fpinfo_i rejection, since
   inner_is_function/outer_is_function are only set for JOIN_INNER.
   - Regression coverage in contrib/postgres_fdw/sql/postgres_fdw.sql now
   reuses your examples.
   
   ------
   Regards,
   Alexander Korotkov
   Supabase
   

9. Re: Function scan FDW pushdown

   Alexander Pyhalov <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru> — 2026-05-18T20:06:31Z

   Alexander Korotkov писал(а) 2026-05-18 13:34:
   > Hi, Alexander!
   > 
   > The revised patch is attached.
   > 
   > On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 11:09 AM Alexander Pyhalov
   > <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
   >> 1) deparseColumnRef() doesn't account for whole row vars.
   >> In queries like
   >> 
   >> UPDATE remote_tbl r SET b=5 FROM UNNEST(array[box '((2,3),(-2,-3))']) 
   >> AS
   >> t (bx) WHERE r.a = area(t.bx)
   >> 
   >> it fails with assert that varattno should be > 0. When we lock
   >> non-relation RTE, we select whole row var, and we have to deparse it 
   >> for
   >> function RTE.
   >> 
   >> You've removed check for function return type. This seems to be
   >> dangerous. Old example
   >> 
   >> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION f_ret_record() RETURNS record AS $$ SELECT
   >> (1,2)::record $$ language SQL IMMUTABLE;
   >> ALTER EXTENSION postgres_fdw ADD function f_ret_record();
   >> EXPLAIN (VERBOSE, COSTS OFF)
   >> SELECT s FROM remote_tbl rt, f_ret_record() AS s(a int, b int)
   >> WHERE s.a = rt.a;
   >> 
   >> fails with
   >> 
   >> ERROR:  a column definition list is required for functions returning
   >> "record"
   > 
   > function_rte_pushdown_ok() now calls get_expr_result_type() and
   > rejects anything that isn't TYPEFUNC_SCALAR (also RECORDOID/VOIDOID),
   > so f_ret_record() no longer reaches the remote side.
   > deparseColumnRef() now handles varattno == 0 for RTE_FUNCTION and
   > emits ROW(f<rti>.c1, ..., f<rti>.c<N>) from rte->eref->colnames.
   > 
   >> 2) postgresBeginForeignScan() can step on function RTE, and doesn't 
   >> know
   >> what to do with it:
   >> SELECT * FROM unnest(array[2,3,4]) n, remote_tbl r WHERE r.a = n;
   >> ERROR:  cache lookup failed for foreign table 0
   >> 
   >> So, we need to look for the first RTE_RELATION, as in older patch
   >> version.
   > 
   > The scanrelid == 0 branch in postgresBeginForeignScan() now scans
   > fs_base_relids until it finds an RTE_RELATION.  An explicit
   > elog(ERROR) guards the (theoretically impossible) case where no
   > foreign RTE is found.
   > 
   >> 3) A lot of complexity in the old patch version was in making it
   >> possible to find out RTE_FUNCTION attribute types after planing, as 
   >> it's
   >> necessary to correctly handle joins. In this version
   >> get_tupdesc_for_join_scan_tuples() doesn't handle function RTEs.  This
   >> means, when we try to find out type for attribute types for joins, 
   >> we'll
   >> get errors. This can be seen in queries like
   >> 
   >> UPDATE remote_tbl r SET b=CASE WHEN random()>=0 THEN 5 ELSE 0 END FROM
   >> UNNEST(array[box '((2,3),(-2,-3))']) AS t (bx) WHERE r.a = area(t.bx)
   >>   RETURNING a,b;
   >> 
   >> Now it fails on earlier stages (with "column f2.c0 does not exist"), 
   >> but
   >> if we fix it, we'll get something like
   >> "ERROR:  input of anonymous composite types is not implemented"
   >> 
   >> Overall, function_rte_pushdown_ok() now allows more strange
   >> constructions. Could it skip Vars from outside of joinrel->relids? Can
   >> we safely ship function with parameters in arguments? I'm not sure.
   > 
   > Restored the per-function metadata you had in v2/v3.
   > FdwScanPrivateFunctions (list of (funcid, funcrettype, funccollation)
   > indexed by RTI-offset) and FdwScanPrivateMinRTIndex are now saved in
   > fdw_private by postgresGetForeignPlan().
   > get_tupdesc_for_join_scan_tuples() now has an RTE_FUNCTION branch that
   > rebuilds the tuple descriptor from this metadata, exactly as in your
   > patch.
   
   Hi. I am a bit confused about this comment (and code):
   
                           /*
                            * DirectModify on a foreign join: pass NIL/0 for 
   the function
                            * metadata.  We don't currently push function 
   RTEs through the
                            * direct-modify path, so there are no whole-row 
   Vars pointing at
                            * function-RTE tuples to reconstruct.
                            */
                           tupdesc = get_tupdesc_for_join_scan_tuples(node, 
   NIL, 0);
   
   We evidently go through this code path when executing example
   
   UPDATE remote_tbl r SET b=5 FROM UNNEST(array[box '((2,3),(-2,-3))']) AS 
   t (bx) WHERE r.a = area(t.bx)
     RETURNING a,b;
   
   But don't need whole row var in returning list.... However, we still can 
   step on this issue.
   
   UPDATE remote_tbl r SET b=5 FROM UNNEST(array[box '((2,3),(-2,-3))'], 
   array[int '1']) AS t (bx,  i) WHERE r.a = area(t.bx)
   RETURNING a,b,t;
   
   ERROR:  input of anonymous composite types is not implemented
   CONTEXT:  whole-row reference to foreign table "t"
   
   -- 
   Best regards,
   Alexander Pyhalov,
   Postgres Professional
   
   
   
   

10. Re: Function scan FDW pushdown

    Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> — 2026-05-19T13:00:58Z

    Hi, Alexander.
    
    On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 11:06 PM Alexander Pyhalov
    <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
    > Hi. I am a bit confused about this comment (and code):
    >
    >                         /*
    >                          * DirectModify on a foreign join: pass NIL/0 for
    > the function
    >                          * metadata.  We don't currently push function
    > RTEs through the
    >                          * direct-modify path, so there are no whole-row
    > Vars pointing at
    >                          * function-RTE tuples to reconstruct.
    >                          */
    >                         tupdesc = get_tupdesc_for_join_scan_tuples(node,
    > NIL, 0);
    >
    > We evidently go through this code path when executing example
    >
    > UPDATE remote_tbl r SET b=5 FROM UNNEST(array[box '((2,3),(-2,-3))']) AS
    > t (bx) WHERE r.a = area(t.bx)
    >   RETURNING a,b;
    >
    > But don't need whole row var in returning list.... However, we still can
    > step on this issue.
    
    Yes, we go through this code path, and it works as long as whole-row
    var is not needed.
    
    > UPDATE remote_tbl r SET b=5 FROM UNNEST(array[box '((2,3),(-2,-3))'],
    > array[int '1']) AS t (bx,  i) WHERE r.a = area(t.bx)
    > RETURNING a,b,t;
    >
    > ERROR:  input of anonymous composite types is not implemented
    > CONTEXT:  whole-row reference to foreign table "t"
    
    But if whole row var is actually used, then the assumption is broken.
    So, we need to build a whole-row var anyway.  I've fixed this in the
    attached patch, and added your sample query as a regression test case.
    
    ------
    Regards,
    Alexander Korotkov
    Supabase
    

11. Re: Function scan FDW pushdown

    Alexander Pyhalov <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru> — 2026-05-19T15:25:54Z

    Alexander Korotkov писал(а) 2026-05-19 16:00:
    > Hi, Alexander.
    > 
    > On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 11:06 PM Alexander Pyhalov
    > <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
    >> Hi. I am a bit confused about this comment (and code):
    >> 
    >>                         /*
    >>                          * DirectModify on a foreign join: pass NIL/0 
    >> for
    >> the function
    >>                          * metadata.  We don't currently push function
    >> RTEs through the
    >>                          * direct-modify path, so there are no 
    >> whole-row
    >> Vars pointing at
    >>                          * function-RTE tuples to reconstruct.
    >>                          */
    >>                         tupdesc = 
    >> get_tupdesc_for_join_scan_tuples(node,
    >> NIL, 0);
    >> 
    >> We evidently go through this code path when executing example
    >> 
    >> UPDATE remote_tbl r SET b=5 FROM UNNEST(array[box '((2,3),(-2,-3))']) 
    >> AS
    >> t (bx) WHERE r.a = area(t.bx)
    >>   RETURNING a,b;
    >> 
    >> But don't need whole row var in returning list.... However, we still 
    >> can
    >> step on this issue.
    > 
    > Yes, we go through this code path, and it works as long as whole-row
    > var is not needed.
    > 
    >> UPDATE remote_tbl r SET b=5 FROM UNNEST(array[box '((2,3),(-2,-3))'],
    >> array[int '1']) AS t (bx,  i) WHERE r.a = area(t.bx)
    >> RETURNING a,b,t;
    >> 
    >> ERROR:  input of anonymous composite types is not implemented
    >> CONTEXT:  whole-row reference to foreign table "t"
    > 
    > But if whole row var is actually used, then the assumption is broken.
    > So, we need to build a whole-row var anyway.  I've fixed this in the
    > attached patch, and added your sample query as a regression test case.
    > 
    
    Good evening.
    
    Found one more issue in whole row var deparsing. It can appear on a 
    nullable outer side, and we should use the same logic as when deparsing 
    table column reference. Otherwise we get records from nulls instead of 
    nulls (for example, "(NULL, NULL)" instead of NULL).
    
    Also I wonder if it is possible for get_tupdesc_for_join_scan_tuples() 
    to get NULL rtfuncdata when it looks at RTE_FUNCTION RTE here:
    
    1759                 else if (rte->rtekind == RTE_FUNCTION && rtfuncdata 
    != NIL)
    1760                 {
    1761                         /*
    1762                          * A whole-row Var points at a FUNCTION RTE 
    absorbed into the
    1763                          * foreign join.  Synthesize an anonymous 
    composite TupleDesc from
    1764                          * the per-function return-type metadata we 
    saved at plan time;
    1765                          * the deparser emits these as 
    ROW(f<rti>.c1, f<rti>.c2, ...).
    1766                          */
    1767                         List       *funcdata;
    1768                         TupleDesc       rte_tupdesc;
    1769                         int                     num_funcs;
    1770                         int                     attnum;
    1771                         ListCell   *lc1,
    
    ?
    
    -- 
    Best regards,
    Alexander Pyhalov,
    Postgres Professional

12. Re: Function scan FDW pushdown

    Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> — 2026-05-19T18:21:45Z

    Good evening!
    
    On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 6:25 PM Alexander Pyhalov
    <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
    >
    > Found one more issue in whole row var deparsing. It can appear on a
    > nullable outer side, and we should use the same logic as when deparsing
    > table column reference. Otherwise we get records from nulls instead of
    > nulls (for example, "(NULL, NULL)" instead of NULL).
    
    
    Good catch, accepted.
    
    > Also I wonder if it is possible for get_tupdesc_for_join_scan_tuples()
    > to get NULL rtfuncdata when it looks at RTE_FUNCTION RTE here:
    >
    > 1759                 else if (rte->rtekind == RTE_FUNCTION && rtfuncdata
    > != NIL)
    > 1760                 {
    > 1761                         /*
    > 1762                          * A whole-row Var points at a FUNCTION RTE
    > absorbed into the
    > 1763                          * foreign join.  Synthesize an anonymous
    > composite TupleDesc from
    > 1764                          * the per-function return-type metadata we
    > saved at plan time;
    > 1765                          * the deparser emits these as
    > ROW(f<rti>.c1, f<rti>.c2, ...).
    > 1766                          */
    > 1767                         List       *funcdata;
    > 1768                         TupleDesc       rte_tupdesc;
    > 1769                         int                     num_funcs;
    > 1770                         int                     attnum;
    > 1771                         ListCell   *lc1,
    >
    > ?
    
    I don't see how that's possible.  I think it would be safer to just
    assert rtfuncdata/funcdata are not NULL.  Revised patch is attached.
    
    ------
    Regards,
    Alexander Korotkov
    Supabase
    

13. Re: Function scan FDW pushdown

    Alexander Pyhalov <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru> — 2026-05-20T10:17:04Z

    Alexander Korotkov писал(а) 2026-05-19 21:21:
    > Good evening!
    > 
    > On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 6:25 PM Alexander Pyhalov
    > <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
    >> 
    >> Found one more issue in whole row var deparsing. It can appear on a
    >> nullable outer side, and we should use the same logic as when 
    >> deparsing
    >> table column reference. Otherwise we get records from nulls instead of
    >> nulls (for example, "(NULL, NULL)" instead of NULL).
    > 
    > 
    > Good catch, accepted.
    > 
    
    Hi.
    
    I've found another issue. The fact that in the new versions of the patch 
    RTE RelOptInfo misses fdw_private seems to be unfortunate. For example, 
    in the last version we haven't thought about classifying 
    baserestrictinfo. And if we do, we should pass fdw_private down to 
    foreign_expr_walker. Perhaps, we could attach it to RTE_FUNCTION rel 
    prior to calling classifyConditions(), but should we later set it back 
    to NULL? Another problem comes if we try to handle joins,  which can 
    crearte subqueries (like INNER/OUTER UNIQUE). In this case we should 
    somehow cook fpinfo for get_relation_column_alias_ids(). Attaching patch 
    which tries to handle baserestrictinfos by passing fpinfo down to 
    foreign_expr_walker().
    
    One more interesting example (included in the patch) is
    
    EXPLAIN (VERBOSE, COSTS OFF)
    WITH s AS MATERIALIZED (SELECT r1.* FROM remote_tbl r1
    JOIN LATERAL
    (SELECT r2.a FROM remote_tbl r2, f(r1.a) LIMIT 1) s
    ON true)
    SELECT * FROM s ORDER BY 1;
    
    We get the following plan:
    
      Sort
        Output: s.a, s.b
        Sort Key: s.a
        CTE s
          ->  Nested Loop
                Output: r1.a, r1.b
                ->  Foreign Scan on public.remote_tbl r1
                      Output: r1.a, r1.b
                      Remote SQL: SELECT a, b FROM public.base_tbl_fn
                ->  Foreign Scan
                      Output: NULL::integer
                      Relations: (public.remote_tbl r2) INNER JOIN (Function 
    f)
                      Remote SQL: SELECT NULL FROM (public.base_tbl_fn r1 
    INNER JOIN public.f($1::integer) f2(c1) ON (TRUE)) LIMIT 1::bigint
        ->  CTE Scan on s
              Output: s.a, s.b
    
    Here you can see that we use parameter in function argument. Don't know 
    if it's a real problem, but at least looks suspicious. In v3 patch used 
    contain_param_walker() in is_nonrel_relinfo_ok() (which mutated to 
    function_rte_pushdown_ok()) to avoid such plans.
    
    One minor issue I've noticed is in function_rte_pushdown_ok():
    +       if (rel->rtekind != RTE_FUNCTION)
    +               return false;
    +       rte = planner_rt_fetch(rel->relid, root);
    +       if (rte->rtekind != RTE_FUNCTION)
    +               return false;
    
    Is the second rtekind check necessary?
    -- 
    Best regards,
    Alexander Pyhalov,
    Postgres Professional