| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)googlemail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Scaling up deferred unique checks and the after trigger queue |
| Date: | 2009-10-26 13:46:31 |
| Message-ID: | 1256564791.8450.11195.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 13:28 +0000, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> It works for all kinds of trigger events,
> and is intended as a complete drop-in replacement for the after
> triggers queue.
> > All of those seem false in the general case. What will you do?
>
> At this point I'm looking for more feedback as to whether any of this
> is a show-stopper, before I expend more effort on this patch.
I see no show stoppers, only for you to look at ways of specifying that
this optimization is possible for particular cases. I think we might be
able to make the general statement that it will work for all after
triggers that execute STABLE or IMMUTABLE functions. I don't think we
can assume that firing order is irrelevant for some cases, e.g. message
queues.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-10-26 13:47:41 | Re: License clarification: BSD vs MIT |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2009-10-26 13:41:12 | Re: Scaling up deferred unique checks and the after trigger queue |