| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join |
| Date: | 2015-11-09 16:09:59 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY8SN1YaNWVm95e3apxAUY890u5n2HxgYbBjbX9j-b4_A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
> Has anyone taken a close look at what happens if the two sides of
> the merge join have different implementations of the same collation
> name? Is there anything we should do to defend against the
> problem?
The issue of FDWs vs. collations has been thought about to some degree
(see FDW_COLLATE_NONE/SAFE/UNSAFE), but I don't quite understand that
stuff in detail.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-11-09 16:15:39 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-11-09 15:59:38 | Re: Getting sorted data from foreign server for merge join |