| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
| Cc: | JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] More FK patches |
| Date: | 2001-11-13 23:04:49 |
| Message-ID: | 4039.1005692689@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> Well, would it time correctly if the override was only around the
> actual execp rather than the prepare and such?
That would definitely feel better, but ultimately global variables
changing the behavior of low-level subroutines are Bad News.
> Do you think it would be better to directly implement the constraint
> checks and actions using scans and C modifying rows rather than the
> query planner and switch over in 7.3?
I believe that's the way to go in the long run, but I don't have any
idea how much work might be involved. What I don't like about the
present setup is (a) the overhead involved, and (b) the fact that we
can't implement quite the right semantics using only user-level queries.
SELECT FOR UPDATE doesn't get the kind of lock we want, and there are
these other issues too.
> I'd also like to know the reasoning Jan had for his decisions so as to
> make an informed attempt. :)
I should probably let Jan speak for himself, but I'm guessing that
it was an easy way to get a prototype implementation up and going.
That was fine at the time --- it was a pretty neat hack, in fact.
But we need to start thinking about an industrial-strength implementation.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-13 23:26:31 | Re: Foreign key referential actions |
| Previous Message | Bradley McLean | 2001-11-13 22:28:26 | Re: Plpython crashing the backend in one easy step |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bill Studenmund | 2001-11-13 23:18:49 | Re: Patch to add Heimdal kerberos support |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-11-13 22:11:16 | Re: [ODBC] MD5 support for ODBC |