| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] SQL assertions prototype |
| Date: | 2013-12-18 19:45:06 |
| Message-ID: | 20131218194506.GA6038@alap2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-12-18 16:39:58 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
> > It would only force serialization for transactions that modify tables
> > covered by the assert, that doesn't seem to bad. Anything covered by an
> > assert shoulnd't be modified frequently, otherwise you'll run into major
> > performance problems.
>
> Well, as presented there is no way (for the system) to tell which tables
> are covered by an assertion, is there? That's my point.
Well, the patch's syntax seems to only allow to directly specify a SQL
query to check - we could iterate over the querytree to gather all
related tables and reject any function we do not understand.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2013-12-18 19:52:47 | Re: [PATCH] SQL assertions prototype |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-12-18 19:42:53 | Re: [PATCH] SQL assertions prototype |