From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Keisuke Kuroda <keisuke(dot)kuroda(dot)3862(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: simplifying foreign key/RI checks |
Date: | 2021-01-25 11:04:41 |
Message-ID: | CA+HiwqFK6V0ZJtz=LYk2dBrqy9b_zfLtMaRDn6g1gbSuA5R+Xg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 7:01 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 6:06 PM Keisuke Kuroda
> <keisuke(dot)kuroda(dot)3862(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > However, as already mentioned, the problem of memory bloat on DELETE remains.
> > This can be solved by the patch in [1], but I think it is too much to apply
> > this patch only for DELETE. What do you think?
> >
> > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/cab4b85d-9292-967d-adf2-be0d803c3e23%40nttcom.co.jp_1
>
> Hmm, the patch tries to solve a general problem that SPI plans are not
> being shared among partitions whereas they should be. So I don't
> think that it's necessarily specific to DELETE. Until we have a
> solution like the patch on this thread for DELETE, it seems fine to
> consider the other patch as a stopgap solution.
Forgot to mention one thing. Alvaro, in his last email on that
thread, characterized that patch as fixing a bug, although I may have
misread that.
--
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Smith | 2021-01-25 11:15:29 | Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker? |
Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2021-01-25 10:49:10 | Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker? |