Re: FDW for PostgreSQL

Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>

From: Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>
To: "Shigeru Hanada *EXTERN*" <shigeru.hanada@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2013-02-14T09:45:04Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Shigeru Hanada wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>             It ought to be pulling the rows back a few at a time, and
>> that's not going to work well if multiple scans are sharing the same
>> connection.  (We might be able to dodge that by declaring a cursor
>> for each scan, but I'm not convinced that such a solution will scale up
>> to writable foreign tables, nested queries, subtransactions, etc.)
> 
> Indeed the FDW used CURSOR in older versions.  Sorry for that I have
> not looked writable foreign table patch closely yet, but it would
> require (may be multiple) remote update query executions during
> scanning?

It would for example call ExecForeignUpdate after each call to
IterateForeignScan that produces a row that meets the UPDATE
condition.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe