Re: problems with foreign keys on partitioned tables

From: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: problems with foreign keys on partitioned tables
Date: 2019-01-19 12:07:42
Message-ID: CA+HiwqF43JQBHKSrfxn846rVb1ycZfnsRakTT9rLhVj=WzGyNw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 7:16 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks, this is better. There were a few other things I didn't like, so
> I updated it. Mostly, two things:
>
> 1. I didn't like a seqscan on pg_trigger, so I turned that into an
> indexed scan on the constraint OID, and then the other two conditions
> are checked in the returned tuples. Also, what's the point on
> duplicating code and checking how many you deleted? Just delete them
> all.

Yeah, I didn't quite like what that code looked like, but it didn't
occur to me that there's an index on tgconstraint.

It looks much better now.

> 2. I didn't like the ABI break, and it wasn't necessary: you can just
> call createForeignKeyActionTriggers directly. That's much simpler.

OK.

> I also added tests. While running them, I noticed that my previous
> commit was broken in terms of relcache invalidation. I don't really
> know if this is a new problem with that commit, or an existing one. The
> fix is 0001.

Looks good.

Thanks,
Amit

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2019-01-19 12:17:34 Re: Query with high planning time at version 11.1 compared versions 10.5 and 11.0
Previous Message Sergei Kornilov 2019-01-19 11:07:42 Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0