| From: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: simplifying foreign key/RI checks |
| Date: | 2021-03-02 07:51:57 |
| Message-ID: | OS0PR01MB57163373DCA692FCCEC0D81494999@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi amit,
(sorry about not cc the hacker list)
I have an issue about command id here.
It's probably not directly related to your patch, so I am sorry if it bothers you.
+ /*
+ * Start the scan. To make the changes of the current command visible to
+ * the scan and for subsequent locking of the tuple (if any) found,
+ * increment the command counter.
+ */
+ CommandCounterIncrement();
For insert on fk relation, is it necessary to create new command id every time ?
I think it is only necessary when it modifies the referenced table.
for example: 1) has modifyingcte
2) has modifying function(trigger/domain...)
All of the above seems not supported in parallel mode(parallel unsafe).
So I was wondering if we can avoid the CommandCounterIncrement in parallel mode.
Best regards,
houzj
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-03-02 08:01:15 | Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods |
| Previous Message | vignesh C | 2021-03-02 07:13:46 | Re: repeated decoding of prepared transactions |