Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
>>> If we're to do anything about this, it is spilling the trigger queue so
>>> it doesn't eat an unbounded amount of memory.
>>
>> Of course, the reason nothing much has been done about that is that
>> by the time your trigger queue is long enough to cause such an issue,
>> you're screwed anyway --- actually executing all those triggers would
>> take longer than you'll want to wait.
> What is the best way to go about doing that, anyway?
Well, we added conditional triggers which provides a partial fix. The
only other idea I've heard that sounds like it'd really help is having
some sort of lossy storage for foreign-key triggers, where we'd fall
back to per-block or whole-table rechecking of the constraint instead of
trying to track the exact rows that were modified. Not sure how you
apply that to non-FK triggers though.
regards, tom lane
