Re: interesting trigger behaviour in 8.3

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Ivan Zolotukhin" <ivan(dot)zolotukhin(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: interesting trigger behaviour in 8.3
Date: 2008-07-29 15:52:01
Message-ID: 11469.1217346721@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

"Ivan Zolotukhin" <ivan(dot)zolotukhin(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> In pseudo code it looks like the following. There are 2 tables, empty
> abstract_table with 3 columns (id, col1, col2) and many tables (e.g.
> inherited_table1_with_data) that inherit abstract_table.
> Constraint_exclusion is set up on id column and works perfectly. So
> we've got update like this

> UPDATE abstract_table SET col1 = 1, col2 = 2 WHERE id = 12345;

I bet it does not *really* look like that, but has a parameterized
WHERE clause. As per the fine manual:

Constraint exclusion only works when the query's WHERE clause
contains constants. A parameterized query will not be optimized,
since the planner cannot know which partitions the parameter value
might select at run time. For the same reason, "stable" functions
such as CURRENT_DATE must be avoided.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Francisco Reyes 2008-07-29 18:06:53 Index creation and maintenance_work_mem
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-07-29 15:42:41 Re: What to do after an "ERROR: out of memory"