| From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: AW: Coping with huge deferred-trigger lists |
| Date: | 2001-05-10 17:59:54 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.21.0105101057210.92606-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> If we do that then we still have a problem with overrunning memory
> after a sufficiently large number of tuples. However, that'd improve
> the constant factor by at least an order of magnitude, so it might be
> worth doing as an intermediate step. Still have to figure out whether
> the triggered-data-change business is significant or not.
I think that was part of the misunderstanding of the spec. I think the
spec means it to be within one statement (and its associated immediate
actions) rather than rest of transaction. I think it's mostly to
prevent loop cases A row 1 modifies B row 1 modifies A row 1 modifies ...
However, I only looked at it briefly a while back.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joel Burton | 2001-05-10 18:29:59 | Re: Re: PL/Python build |
| Previous Message | bpalmer | 2001-05-10 17:49:55 | Re: Regression tests for OBSD scrammed.. |