On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 12:25 PM Corey Huinker <corey.huin...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 9:48 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Corey Huinker <corey.huin...@gmail.com> writes: >> > Given that we're already looking at these checks, I was wondering if this >> > might be the time to consider implementing these checks by directly >> > scanning the constraint index. >> >> Yeah, maybe. Certainly ri_triggers is putting a huge amount of effort >> into working around the SPI/parser/planner layer, to not a lot of gain. >> >> However, it's not clear to me that that line of thought will work well >> for the statement-level-trigger approach. In that case you might be >> dealing with enough tuples to make a different plan advisable. > > Bypassing SPI would probably mean that we stay with row level triggers, and > the cached query plan would go away, perhaps replaced by an > already-looked-up-this-tuple hash sorta like what the cached nested loops > effort is doing. > > I've been meaning to give this a try when I got some spare time. This may > inspire me to try again.
+1 for this line of work. -- Amit Langote EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
