| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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 21:04:07 |
| Message-ID: | 52B20DC7.8050404@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/18/2013 02:45 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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.
>
Umm, that's really a major limitation in utility. We need to come up
with a better answer than this, which would essentially hobble the facility.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-12-18 21:07:35 | Re: stats for network traffic WIP |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-12-18 20:41:24 | Re: stats for network traffic WIP |