| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] SQL assertions prototype |
| Date: | 2013-11-26 18:42:16 |
| Message-ID: | 5294EB88.50802@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/24/13, 10:03 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> So we'd need to get access to the changed rows, rather than
> re-executing a huge SQL command that re-checks every row of the table.
> That last point will make it unusable for sensible amounts of data.
SQL assertions work with arbitrary expressions. So even if you had the
changed rows, you couldn't do anything with them in general. For cases
where it makes sense to consider the changed rows, you probably want a
per-table trigger or an exclusion constraint or perhaps an auto-updated
materialized view. Then again, we have lots of ways to make queries
fast even for large tables.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-11-26 18:50:37 | Re: pre-commit triggers |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-11-26 18:36:12 | Re: Cleaner build output when not much has changed |