| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: push AFTER-trigger execution into ModifyTable node |
| Date: | 2009-10-29 23:52:13 |
| Message-ID: | 407d949e0910291652t6d5c09a9ofa2b1b9c0631c24b@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Pipelined execution would be nice but I really doubt that it's worth
> what we'd have to give up to have it. The one-at-a-time behavior will
> be simple to understand and reliable to use. Concurrent execution won't
> be either.
I think the ideal way to get pipelined execution will be to detect the
cases where it's safe, ie, no deletes, inserts, or updates, no
recursive calls, and only one call site, and inline the sql directly
into the callsite. Actually we could do that even if there are two
callsites if there are no volatile functions but estimating whether
that would be a win or a loss would be hard.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2009-10-30 01:51:12 | Re: Syntax for partitioning |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-10-29 23:24:22 | grant with hierarchy option |