Re: [PATCH] Partial foreign key updates in referential integrity triggers

From: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Paul Martinez <hellopfm(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Partial foreign key updates in referential integrity triggers
Date: 2021-12-01 14:11:54
Message-ID: CAEze2Wj=4g1RbMA_w8X_k9NRJ01anZsg3VqjAhz=srqOUpAcfg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 11:33, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 23.11.21 05:44, Paul Martinez wrote:
> > Updated patch attached. Thanks for taking a look so quickly!
>
> This patch looks pretty much okay to me. As I wrote in another message
> in this thread, I'm having some doubts about the proper use case. So
> I'm going to push this commit fest entry to the next one, so we can
> continue that discussion.

The use case of the original mail "foreign keys are guaranteed to not
be cross-tenant" seems like a good enough use case to me?

The alternative to the discriminator column approach to seperating
tenant data even when following referential integrety checks would be
maintaining a copy of the table for each tenant, but this won't work
as well due to (amongst others) syscache bloat, prepared statements
being significantly less effective, and DDL operations now growing
linearly with the amount of tenants in the system.

Kind regards,

Matthias van de Meent

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2021-12-01 14:22:39 Re: Reserve prefixes for loaded libraries proposal
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2021-12-01 14:11:53 Re: stat() vs ERROR_DELETE_PENDING, round N + 1