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