Stephan Szabo writes:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I note BTW that we have some ad-hoc logic already that arranges to
>> suppress queuing of AFTER events for FK triggers, if the FK column
>> value has not changed. It might be interesting to look at whether
>> that hack could be unifi
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
> I note BTW that we have some ad-hoc logic already that arranges to
> suppress queuing of AFTER events for FK triggers, if the FK column
> value has not changed. It might be interesting to look at whether
> that hack could be unified with the user-accessible
Simon Riggs writes:
> If the function is idempotent then we can also optimise away multiple
> calls by checking whether a similar call is already queued.
But how would we know that? It seems orthogonal to this patch,
anyway.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 10:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 09:31 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> * It will reduce size of in-memory pending trigger list (for large
> >> statements)
>
> > But this won't be the outcome when it's implemented the way it is
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 09:31 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> * It will reduce size of in-memory pending trigger list (for large
>> statements)
> But this won't be the outcome when it's implemented the way it is being
> proposed, which checks the where clause just before exe
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 14:39 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 09:31 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > * It will reduce size of in-memory pending trigger list (for large
> > statements)
>
> But this won't be the outcome when it's implemented the way it is being
> proposed, which ch
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 09:31 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> * It will reduce size of in-memory pending trigger list (for large
> statements)
But this won't be the outcome when it's implemented the way it is being
proposed, which checks the where clause just before executing the
trigger function.
--
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 10:14 +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Itagaki Takahiro writes:
> > > I think there is a benefit to provide WHEN cluase at least
> > > for compatibility with other DBMSs, even through we can move
> > > the expressions into the body of trigger functions
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 16:54 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>
> > It's pretty often the case (IME) that calling a trigger is the only
> > point in the session where you fire plpgsql, and that's a visible
> > cost.
>
> Wouldn't a connection pool solve this?
No
--
Simo
Tom Lane wrote:
> Itagaki Takahiro writes:
> > I think there is a benefit to provide WHEN cluase at least
> > for compatibility with other DBMSs, even through we can move
> > the expressions into the body of trigger functions.
>
> This seems to me to be a lot of code to accomplish nothing usef
Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> It's pretty often the case (IME) that calling a trigger is the only
> point in the session where you fire plpgsql, and that's a visible
> cost.
Wouldn't a connection pool solve this?
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To m
Tom Lane writes:
> That argument is based on a completely evidence-free assumption, namely
> that this patch would make your case faster. Executing the WHEN tests
> is hardly going to be zero cost. It's not too hard to postulate cases
> where implementing a filter this way would be *slower* than
Pavel Stehule writes:
> 2009/10/15 Tom Lane :
>> This seems to me to be a lot of code to accomplish nothing useful.
> I disagree. When I analysed speed of some operations, I found some
> unwanted trigger calls should to slow down applications. I am for any
> method, that could to decrease trigger
Itagaki Takahiro writes:
> I think there is a benefit to provide WHEN cluase at least
> for compatibility with other DBMSs, even through we can move
> the expressions into the body of trigger functions.
This seems to me to be a lot of code to accomplish nothing useful.
It will always be the case
2009/10/15 Tom Lane :
> Itagaki Takahiro writes:
>> I think there is a benefit to provide WHEN cluase at least
>> for compatibility with other DBMSs, even through we can move
>> the expressions into the body of trigger functions.
>
> This seems to me to be a lot of code to accomplish nothing usefu
15 matches
Mail list logo
