Re: postgres_fdw bug in 9.6
Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
From: Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-01-05T03:10:55Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2016/12/28 17:34, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Etsuro Fujita > <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> On 2016/12/28 15:54, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Etsuro Fujita >>> <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >>>> On 2016/12/27 22:03, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: >>>>> If mergejoin_allowed is true and mergeclauselist is non-NIL but >>>>> hashclauselist is NIL (that's rare but there can be types has merge >>>>> operators but not hash operators), we will end up returning NULL. I >>>>> think we want to create a merge join in that case. I think the order >>>>> of conditions should be 1. check hashclause_list then create hash join >>>>> 2. else check if merge allowed, create merge join. It looks like that >>>>> would cover all the cases, if there aren't any hash clauses, and also >>>>> no merge clauses, we won't be able to implement a FULL join, so it >>>>> will get rejected during path creation itself. >>>> Right, maybe we can do that by doing similar things as in >>>> match_unsort_outer >>>> and/or sort_inner_and_outer. But as you mentioned, the case is rare, so >>>> the >>>> problem would be whether it's worth complicating the code (and if it's >>>> worth, whether we should do that at the first version of the function). >>> All I am requesting is changing the order of conditions. That doesn't >>> complicate the code. >> I might have misunderstood your words, but you are saying we should consider >> mergejoin paths with some mergeclauses in the case where hashclauses is NIL, >> right? To do so, we would need to consider the sort orders of outer/inner >> paths, which would make the code complicated. > Hmm. If I understand the patch correctly, it does not return any path > when merge join is allowed and there are merge clauses but no hash > clauses. In this case we will not create a foreign join path, loosing > some optimization. If we remove GetExistingLocalJoinPath, which > returns a path in those cases as well, we have a regression in > performance. Ok, will revise, but as I mentioned upthread, I'm not sure it's a good idea to search the pathlist to get a merge join even in this case. I'd vote for creating a merge join path from the inner/outer paths in this case as well. I think that would simplify the code as well. Best regards, Etsuro Fujita
Commits
-
Fix test case for 'outer pathkeys do not match mergeclauses' fix.
- d397f558d555 9.6.7 landed
- 92123c6ea212 10.2 landed
- 99f6a17dd62a 11.0 landed
-
postgres_fdw: Avoid 'outer pathkeys do not match mergeclauses' error.
- 4a81c022975e 9.6.7 landed
- 3f05a30b50a7 10.2 landed
- 4bbf6edfbd5d 11.0 landed
-
postgres_fdw: Consider foreign joining and foreign sorting together.
- aa09cd242fa7 9.6.0 cited
-
Allow foreign and custom joins to handle EvalPlanQual rechecks.
- 385f337c9f39 9.6.0 cited
-
Allow FDWs to push down quals without breaking EvalPlanQual rechecks.
- 5fc4c26db512 9.6.0 cited