| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Further thoughts about warning for costly FK checks |
| Date: | 2004-03-17 17:29:23 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0403171821200.483@sablons.cri.ensmp.fr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Also, because of the opposition by some DBA, these checks could be disable
> > by some options, but I would suggest the option to be on by default.
>
> I was thinking of a GUC variable called PERFORMANCE_HINTS, which would
> throw a message if a lookup from the primary to the foreign key didn't
> have an index.
As I've looked in the code abouts these things to present some patches,
there are different concepts :
- message levels as DEBUG, NOTICE, WARNING, ERROR...
- additional message fields as HINT, CONTEXT...
I think that this is not related to level or fields. so
"performance_hints" looks misleading to me. I would take a
"performance_advices" or "performance_checks" as these are not used yet,
and the levels may be notice/warning... and the hint field is not
necessarily used.
Well, this is just to talk;-)
--
Fabien Coelho - coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-17 17:36:35 | Re: Further thoughts about warning for costly FK checks |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-03-17 17:25:17 | Re: Constraints & pg_dump |