| From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)googlemail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Deferrable unique constraints |
| Date: | 2009-07-27 19:03:45 |
| Message-ID: | 8e2dbb700907271203x13896fe8g2da7ed936231dcc9@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2009/7/27 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> (In fact, in a real sense these ARE join problems ... maybe we should
> stop thinking of them as fire-a-bunch-of-triggers and instead think of
> executing a single check query with appropriate WHERE clause ...)
>
Hmm. Presumably that is the same WHERE clause as the UPDATE.
But it has to execute after the update. How does it avoid re-executing
functions, re-incrementing sequences, etc... ?
- Dean
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zach Conrad | 2009-07-27 19:15:17 | potential bug with query optimizer and functions |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2009-07-27 18:54:09 | Re: WIP: Deferrable unique constraints |