| From: | Keisuke Kuroda <keisuke(dot)kuroda(dot)3862(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: simplifying foreign key/RI checks |
| Date: | 2021-01-25 09:06:39 |
| Message-ID: | CANDwgg+gF94y+C9iF6ChLnfra4FZU_GJRkPU0bP6hdeZnPibig@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, Amit-san,
Nice patch. I have confirmed that this solves the problem in [1] with
INSERT/UPDATE.
HEAD + patch
name | bytes | pg_size_pretty
------------------+-------+----------------
CachedPlanQuery | 10280 | 10 kB
CachedPlanSource | 14616 | 14 kB
CachedPlan | 13168 | 13 kB ★ 710MB -> 13kB
(3 rows)
> > This patch completely sidesteps the DELETE case, which has more insidious performance implications, but is also far less common, and whose solution will likely be very different.
>
> Yeah, we should continue looking into the ways to make referenced-side
> RI checks be less bloated.
However, as already mentioned, the problem of memory bloat on DELETE remains.
This can be solved by the patch in [1], but I think it is too much to apply
this patch only for DELETE. What do you think?
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/cab4b85d-9292-967d-adf2-be0d803c3e23%40nttcom.co.jp_1
--
Keisuke Kuroda
NTT Software Innovation Center
keisuke(dot)kuroda(dot)3862(at)gmail(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-01-25 09:12:00 | Re: Identify missing publications from publisher while create/alter subscription. |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2021-01-25 09:06:31 | Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?) |