| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: minimal update |
| Date: | 2008-10-20 14:51:54 |
| Message-ID: | 48FC9B0A.4000502@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> OK. Where would be a good place to put the code? Maybe a new file
>>>> src/backend/utils/adt/trigger_utils.c ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I thought the plan was to make it a contrib module.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Well, previous discussion did mention catalog entries, which would
>> suggest otherwise, but I can do it as a contrib module if that's the
>> consensus.
>>
>
> What would be the actual reason to put it in contrib and not core? Are
> there any "dangers" by having it there? Or is it "just a hack" and not a
> "real solution"?
>
>
>
No, it's not just a hack. It's very close to what we'd probably do if we
built the facility right into the language, although it does involve the
overhead of calling the trigger. However, it performs reasonably well -
not surprising since the guts of it is just a memcmp() call.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-10-20 14:56:25 | Re: Block level concurrency during recovery |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-10-20 14:51:51 | Re: Window Functions: buffering strategy |