Re: BUG #4204: COPY to table with FK has memory leak

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BUG #4204: COPY to table with FK has memory leak
Date: 2008-05-28 20:47:35
Message-ID: 87d4n6p34o.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>> This is expected to take lots of memory because each row-requiring-check
>>> generates an entry in the pending trigger event list.
>
>> Hm, it occurs to me that we could still do a join against the pending event
>> trigger list... I wonder how feasible it would be to store the pending trigger
>> event list in a temporary table instead of in ram.
>
> We could make that list spill to disk, but the problem remains that
> verifying the rows one at a time will take forever.

Well I was thinking if we did a join between a temporary table and the fk
target then it wouldn't have to be a one-by-one operation. It could be a merge
join if the planner thought that was better. How to get accurate stats into
the planner at that point would be a missing detail though.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support!

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2008-05-28 21:45:37 Re: BUG #4204: COPY to table with FK has memory leak
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-05-28 20:28:27 Re: BUG #4204: COPY to table with FK has memory leak

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2008-05-28 20:55:34 Re: Avoiding second heap scan in VACUUM
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2008-05-28 20:32:06 Re: Avoiding second heap scan in VACUUM