Re: simplifying foreign key/RI checks

From: Tatsuro Yamada <tatsuro(dot)yamada(dot)tf(at)nttcom(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: simplifying foreign key/RI checks
Date: 2021-01-26 23:51:40
Message-ID: 8c17a76f-bd60-dcc0-dca7-6a438f57f23d@nttcom.co.jp_1
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Amit-san,

On 2021/01/25 18:19, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 9:24 AM Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 6:51 AM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Here's v5.
>>
>> v5 patches apply to master.
>> Suggested If/then optimization is implemented.
>> Suggested case merging is implemented.
>> Passes make check and make check-world yet again.
>> Just to confirm, we don't free the RI_CompareHashEntry because it points to an entry in a hash table which is TopMemoryContext aka lifetime of the session, correct?
>
> Right.
>
>> Anybody else want to look this patch over before I mark it Ready For Committer?
>
> Would be nice to have others look it over. Thanks.

Thanks for creating the patch!

I tried to review the patch. Here is my comment.

* According to this thread [1], it might be better to replace elog() with
ereport() in the patch.

[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/92d6f545-5102-65d8-3c87-489f71ea0a37%40enterprisedb.com

Thanks,
Tatsuro Yamada

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2021-01-27 00:39:25 Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker?
Previous Message Peter Smith 2021-01-26 23:27:46 pg_replication_origin_drop API potential race condition