| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "w(dot)p(dot)dijkstra(at)mgrid(dot)net" <w(dot)p(dot)dijkstra(at)mgrid(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: FK's to refer to rows in inheritance child |
| Date: | 2010-12-04 17:12:16 |
| Message-ID: | 4CFA7670.4090406@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/04/2010 11:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark<gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
>
>> [ suggestion for cross-table indexes ]
> That's been proposed before, and shot down before, though I don't recall
> all the reasons offhand. One obvious problem is VACUUM, which assumes
> that you can't have two processes trying to vacuum the same index
> concurrently. Another is what happens when you drop one of the tables
> involved in the index. Even the locking involved to make a uniqueness
> check against a different table would be not-nice (locking a table after
> you already have lock on its index risks deadlock against operations
> going the other way).
>
>
Those are difficulties, certainly. Are they insurmountable obstacles,
though? This is something that has been on the TODO list for ages and I
think is very worth doing, if we can.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-04 17:19:59 | Re: FK's to refer to rows in inheritance child |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-04 17:08:27 | Re: EXPLAIN Sort Method whitespace |