Re: WIP: generalized index constraints

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WIP: generalized index constraints
Date: 2009-07-06 10:56:41
Message-ID: 1246877801.27964.802.camel@dn-x300-willij
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 17:28 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> This is a follow up to my old proposal here:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-06/msg00404.php
>

> Any input is appreciated (design problems, implementation, language
> ideas, or anything else). I'd like to get it into shape for the July
> 15 commitfest if no major problems are found.

I was concerned that your definition of concurrently inserted didn't
seem to match the size of the shared memory array required.

How will you cope with a large COPY? Surely there can be more than one
concurrent insert from any backend?

It would be useful to see a real example of what this can be used for.

I think it will be useful to separate the concepts of a constraint from
the concept of an index. It seems possible to have a UNIQUE constraint
that doesn't help at all in locating rows, just in proving that the rows
are unique.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2009-07-06 11:28:58 Re: WIP: generalized index constraints
Previous Message Itagaki Takahiro 2009-07-06 10:28:57 ALTER SET DISTINCT vs. Oracle-like DBMS_STATS