| From: | Adam Brusselback <adambrusselback(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Referential Integrity Checks with Statement-level Triggers |
| Date: | 2018-12-17 18:18:56 |
| Message-ID: | CAMjNa7fPEUonQJDE2bY4KvCR+Ai7qUTT1XdUhgHYXJ8DMpx+tg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
It's something I know I am interested in. For me, I don't really care if my
statement doesn't cancel until the very end if there is a RI violation. The
benefit of not having deletes be slow on tables which have others
referencing it with a fkey which don't have their own index is huge IMO. I
have a good number of those type of logging tables where an index is not
useful 99% of the time, but every once and a while a bulk delete needs to
happen.
It is far from a premature optimization IMO, it is super useful and
something I was hoping would happen ever since I heard about transition
tables being worked on.
Just my $0.02.
-Adam
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2018-12-17 18:24:29 | Re: Referential Integrity Checks with Statement-level Triggers |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2018-12-17 17:58:41 | psql exit status with multiple -c or -f |