| From: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com, Adam Brusselback <adambrusselback(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Referential Integrity Checks with Statement-level Triggers |
| Date: | 2019-02-25 16:40:43 |
| Message-ID: | CADkLM=c22S2s6UjSCVjkfAKBaMAO8hyD9UB4qF96t5cu8czaCQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
>
> In order to avoid per-row calls of the constraint trigger functions, we
> could
> try to "aggregate" the constraint-specific events somehow, but I think a
> separate queue would be needed for the constraint-specific events.
>
> In general, the (after) triggers and constraints have too much in common,
> so
> separation of these w/o seeing code changes is beyond my imagination.
>
>
Yeah, there's a lot of potential for overlap where a trigger could "borrow"
an RI tuplestore or vice versa.
The people who expressed opinions on nuking triggers from orbit (it's the
only way to be sure) have yet to offer up any guidance on how to proceed
from here, and I suspect it's because they're all very busy getting things
ready for v12. I definitely have an interest in working on this for 13, but
I don't feel good about striking out on my own without their input.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-02-25 16:42:36 | Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2019-02-25 16:39:29 | Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit? |