Re: [PERFORM] Foreign key performance

From: Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Foreign key performance
Date: 2003-04-22 11:44:30
Message-ID: 20030422114429.GQ1833@filer
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

Tom Lane wrote:
> Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com> writes:
> > Any chance of backporting these changes to 7_3_STABLE (when you're
> > satisfied they don't break anything)? Just looking at the CVS log for
> > trigger.c, it appears there have been enough changes since then that
> > it might not be easy to do (and since it's not necessarily a "bug fix"
> > as such, it might not qualify for backporting to a stable version).
>
> I'd be pretty hesitant to make such a change in the stable branch ---
> at least not without a lot of testing. If you and others want to
> provide such testing, go to it. The patch appears to apply cleanly
> enough to 7.3, but here's an adjusted patch if fuzz makes you
> nervous...

Thanks, Tom. I've applied the patch to my server and it has so far
passed the few tests I've thrown at it so far (it has detected foreign
key violations in both immediate and deferred trigger mode). And just
so you know, it performs FAR better than the pre-patched version does
-- in the overall transaction I'm doing, I see very little difference
now between deferred triggers and no triggers!

--
Kevin Brown kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Philip Warner 2003-04-22 11:48:43 bit strings - anyone working on them?
Previous Message Nigel J. Andrews 2003-04-22 09:31:04 Re: Bizarre 7.3.2 bug

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vincent van Leeuwen 2003-04-22 12:11:50 Re: the RAID question, again
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2003-04-22 08:33:27 Re: [SQL] Yet Another (Simple) Case of Index not used