From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
Subject: | Re: observations about temporary tables and schemas |
Date: | 2003-09-17 15:08:00 |
Message-ID: | 20030917075737.P33923@megazone.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces pgsql-odbc |
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> writes:
> > ... you are allowed to reference a permanent table from a temp
> > table. The triggers don't work correctly when the table is
> > modified by another backend:
>
> I think we have two choices: disallow foreign-key references from temp
> tables to permanent tables, or take out the optimization of storing
> temp table pages in private memory. (That would leave the whole "local
> buffer manager" module as dead code, I think.) I'm kinda leaning
> towards the first; does anyone feel that it's a valuable feature to keep?
I think the first is probably better all in all.
> > After some further investigation this problem can also be generated by two
> > temp tables:
>
> That is not the same bug; the problem here is that ON COMMIT DELETE ROWS
> simply does an unconditional heap_truncate without bothering to run any
> deletion triggers. We could make it apply the same checks TRUNCATE
> TABLE does, whereupon you'd get some sort of "can't truncate table"
> error when you try to set up a foreign key reference to it. That could
> be extended to disallowing the FK reference in the first place, perhaps.
> Or we could turn it into a "DELETE FROM temptable", which would be a lot
> slower but would "do the right thing". Comments?
Since it's documented as doing a truncate, I think disallowing non-self
referential FK constraints is probably a good idea. I'm not sure that
doing all the work on commit to make the table rows delete individually
for the trigger/foreign key case is really worth it.
> BTW, it occurs to me that TRUNCATE TABLE refuses to truncate relations
> referenced by foreign keys, but this is really not a correct/complete
> test. What about user-defined deletion triggers? Arguably it should
> refuse to truncate if there are any ON DELETE triggers at all.
Oracle doesn't seem to list those as being a problem (it explicitly lists
the foreign key constraint). It looks like they have a separate action
type for truncate so you can make before/after truncate triggers.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dennis Bjorklund | 2003-09-17 17:07:06 | Re: New thoughts about indexing cross-type comparisons |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2003-09-17 15:04:56 | Re: observations about temporary tables and schemas |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-17 16:04:29 | Re: ERROR: dynamic load not supported |
Previous Message | Rich Cullingford | 2003-09-17 14:55:01 | ERROR: dynamic load not supported |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Eckermann | 2003-09-17 22:29:25 | Re: how to compile the odbc source? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-17 14:26:32 | Re: observations about temporary tables and schemas |