Re: Deferrable Unique Constraints

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Deferrable Unique Constraints
Date: 2005-01-27 14:39:05
Message-ID: 19325.1106836745@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> It's only a SMOC, nothing difficult AFAICS. Disk-spilling logic
> included, because it'd be probably needed.

The question of disk-spilling is really the only part that seems very
hard. It would be useful to see if we could solve the problem of
spilling pending-trigger-event lists at the same time. Common
infrastructure possible, perhaps?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-01-27 15:27:13 Re: Patent issues and 8.1
Previous Message Oleg Bartunov 2005-01-27 14:35:51 strange 'vacuum verbose analyze' behaviour