From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
Cc: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Joe Van Dyk <joe(at)tanga(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Adding a nullable DOMAIN column w/ CHECK |
Date: | 2014-09-07 19:31:41 |
Message-ID: | 9447.1410118301@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2014 at 01:06:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This objection could be met by doing a precheck to verify that the table
>> contains at least one live row. That's pretty ugly and personally I'm not
>> sure it's necessary, but I think there's room to argue that it is.
> Yes; I doubt one could justify failing on an empty table as though it had been
> a one-row table. I see a couple ways we could avoid the I/O and complexity:
> 1) If contain_leaky_functions() approves every constraint expression, test the
> constraints once, and we're done. Otherwise, proceed as we do today.
> 2) Test the constraints in a subtransaction. If the subtransaction commits,
> we're done. Otherwise, proceed as we do today.
I'm not sure either of those is better than doing a single heap_getnext(),
which really should be pretty cheap except under pathological conditions.
It's the messiness I'm worried about more than the cost.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2014-09-07 19:47:53 | Re: Built-in binning functions |
Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2014-09-07 19:23:34 | Re: Adding a nullable DOMAIN column w/ CHECK |