From: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | yuzuko <yuzukohosoya(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Release SPI plans for referential integrity with DISCARD ALL |
Date: | 2021-01-19 06:56:26 |
Message-ID: | CADkLM=eqGTy_Zi8n5RjxifmfogJbHxMOjeu0Vz_3M5xbLB6YTg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 1:03 PM Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> In addition to that, a following case would be solved with this approach:
>> When many processes are referencing many tables defined foreign key
>> constraints thoroughly, a huge amount of memory will be consumed
>> regardless of whether referenced tables are partitioned or not.
>>
>> Attached the patch. Any thoughts?
>>
>
> Amit Langote has done some great work at eliminating SPI from
> INSERT/UPDATE triggers entirely, thus reducing the number of cached plans
> considerably.
>
> I think he was hoping to have a patch formalized this week, if time
> allowed.
>
> It doesn't have DELETE triggers in it, so this patch might still have good
> value for deletes on a commonly used enumeration table.
>
> However, our efforts might be better focused on eliminating SPI from
> delete triggers as well, an admittedly harder task.
>
Amit's patch is now available in this thread [1]. I'm curious if it has any
effect on your memory pressure issue.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com | 2021-01-19 06:57:58 | RE: Parallel INSERT (INTO ... SELECT ...) |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-01-19 06:48:08 | Re: ResourceOwner refactoring |