Re: More efficient RI checks - take 2

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: More efficient RI checks - take 2
Date: 2020-04-22 17:46:22
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZF_fkSYTcY7=yiRr7MxC=yt1VoZPMcYfwsRYw6TusEmA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 1:18 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Well, I was actually thinking in building ready-made execution trees,
> bypassing the planner altogether. But apparently no one thinks that
> this is a good idea, and we don't have any code that does that already,
> so maybe it's not a great idea.

If it's any consolation, I had the same idea very recently while
chatting with Amit Langote. Maybe it's a bad idea, but you're not the
only one who had it. :-)

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2020-04-22 17:57:54 Re: 2pc leaks fds
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2020-04-22 17:46:11 Re: Logical replication subscription owner