From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Patch to support SEMI and ANTI join removal |
Date: | 2014-09-29 14:28:13 |
Message-ID: | 20140929142813.GD14652@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-09-29 10:12:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2014-09-28 10:41:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> If this optimization only works in that scenario, it's dead in the water,
> >> because that assumption is unsupportable. The planner does not in general
> >> use the same query snapshot as the executor, so even in an immediate-
> >> execution workflow there could have been data changes (caused by other
> >> transactions) between planning and execution.
>
> > I don't think the effects of other queries are the problem here. The
> > effect of other backend's deferred FK checks shouldn't matter for other
> > backends for normal query purposes. It's the planning backend that might
> > have deferred checks and thus temporarily violated foreign keys.
>
> I see. So why aren't we simply ignoring deferrable FKs when making the
> optimization? That pushes it back from depending on execution-time state
> (unsafe) to depending on table DDL (safe).
IIRC there's some scenarios where violated FKs are visible to client
code for nondeferrable ones as well. Consider e.g. cascading foreign
keys + triggers. Or, somewhat insane, operators used in fkey triggers
that execute queries themselves.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-09-29 14:34:40 | Re: WITH CHECK and Column-Level Privileges |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-09-29 14:26:43 | Re: WITH CHECK and Column-Level Privileges |