| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | elein <elein(at)varlena(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Domains and subtypes, a brief proposal |
| Date: | 2006-09-08 19:47:23 |
| Message-ID: | 22711.1157744843@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
elein <elein(at)varlena(dot)com> writes:
> a) if subtypes/domains can have constraints then the model should
> not be different for domains only but for all types. Constraint
> checking would only
> occur at check constraint points--and there for any type. You
> already check for the existance of a domain. Change that test
> to the existence of a constraint only and eliminate domain specific
> code.
Au contraire, the test whether a constraint actually exists occurs at
runtime, not at the time we check for domain-ness. Your proposal would
force such checks to be introduced into every single expression
evaluation. It's not feasible at all without plan invalidation, and
even with that I foresee fairly enormous added overhead. Our experience
with domains so far is that looking up those constraints is *expensive*.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-09-08 19:47:46 | Re: [HACKERS] Fix linking of OpenLDAP libraries |
| Previous Message | elein | 2006-09-08 19:41:02 | Re: Domains and subtypes, a brief proposal |