Added to TODO:
* Improve referential integrity checks
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2005-10/msg00458.php
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 09:4
This has been saved for the 8.4 release:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 09:49:47AM -0500, Bruno Wolff
Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Looking at this, I wonder if there isn't a bug or at least an
> > inefficiency in 8.1. The KeysEqual short circuit tests are still there
> > in ri_triggers.c; aren't they now redundant with the test in triggers.c?
> > And don't they need to account for the special ca
Would someone please find the answer to Tom's last question?
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Looking at this, I wonder if there isn't a bug or at least an
> > inefficiency in 8.1. The KeysEqual short circuit tests are st
Would someone add a comment in the code about this, or research it?
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Looking at this, I wonder if there isn't a bug or at least an
> > inefficiency in 8.1. The KeysEqual short circuit tests
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Thomas F. O'Connell wrote:
>> It seems like this warrants an item somewhere in the release notes,
>> and I'm not currently seeing it (or a related item) anywhere. Perhaps
>> E.1.3.1 (Performance Improvements)? For some of the more extreme
>> UPDATE scenarios I've see
Thomas F. O'Connell wrote:
> > In 8.1 there is a check to see if the foreign key value has changed
> > and if
> > not a trigger isn't queued. In the currently released versions any
> > update
> > will fire triggers.
> > The check in comment for trigger.c didn't say if this optimization
> > ap
On Oct 29, 2005, at 9:48 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 13:10:31 +0200,
Martin Lesser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Which effects have UPDATEs on REFERENCEd TABLEs when only columns
in the
referenced table are updated which are not part of the FOREIGN KEY
constraint?
In
I wrote:
> Looking at this, I wonder if there isn't a bug or at least an
> inefficiency in 8.1. The KeysEqual short circuit tests are still there
> in ri_triggers.c; aren't they now redundant with the test in triggers.c?
> And don't they need to account for the special case mentioned in the
> comm
Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 09:49:47AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> It looks like this feature was added last May, so I think it only applies
>> to 8.1.
> Earlier versions appear to have at least some kind of optimization.
Yeah. IIRC, for quite some tim
Michael Fuhr wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 09:49:47AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 08:24:32 -0600, Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > My tests suggest that a lookup on the referring key is done only
> > > if the referenced key is changed. Here's an e
On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 09:49:47AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 08:24:32 -0600, Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > My tests suggest that a lookup on the referring key is done only
> > if the referenced key is changed. Here's an example from 8.1beta4;
> > I us
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 13:10:31 +0200,
> Martin Lesser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Which effects have UPDATEs on REFERENCEd TABLEs when only columns in the
> > referenced table are updated which are not part of the FOREIGN KEY
> > constraint?
>
> In 8.1 there is a ch
On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 08:24:32 -0600,
Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Does an UPDATE of e.g. m_fld1 in t_master cause a 'lookup' in all tables
> > which have a cascading update-rule or is this 'lookup' only triggered if
> > the referenced column in t_master is explicitly updated?
>
On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 13:10:31 +0200,
Martin Lesser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which effects have UPDATEs on REFERENCEd TABLEs when only columns in the
> referenced table are updated which are not part of the FOREIGN KEY
> constraint?
In 8.1 there is a check to see if the foreign key value h
> Does an UPDATE of e.g. m_fld1 in t_master cause a 'lookup' in all tables
> which have a cascading update-rule or is this 'lookup' only triggered if
> the referenced column in t_master is explicitly updated?
My tests suggest that a lookup on the referring key is done only
if the referenced key is
Which effects have UPDATEs on REFERENCEd TABLEs when only columns in the
referenced table are updated which are not part of the FOREIGN KEY
constraint?
I have one "master"-table like
create table t_master (
m_id serial primary key,
m_fld1 ...,
m_fld2 ...,
...
)
The table above is
17 matches
Mail list logo
