On Sep 27, 2011, at 6:37 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 09/27/2011 12:54 PM, Ben Chobot wrote: >> >> My memory is fuzzy but as I recall, a possible downside to using >> deferred constraints was increased memory usage > > That's right. PostgreSQL doesn't currently support spilling of pending > constraint information to disk; it has to keep it in RAM, and with > sufficiently huge deferred updates/inserts/deletes it's possible for the > backend to run out of RAM to use. > >> though I cannot see how at the moment. > > A list of which triggers to run, and on which tuples, must be maintained > until those triggers are fired. That list has to be kept somewhere.
Well when you put it like that, it's so obvious. :) -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
