Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com> writes:
> The hack was just the keeping around the list pointer from the last run
> through (see attached - passed simple fk tests and regression, but there
> might be problems I don't see).
Shouldn't this patch update the comment in deferredTriggerInvokeEvents
(c. line 1860 in cvs tip)?
> Looking at the code, I also wonder if we
> would get some gain by not allocating the per_tuple_context at the
> beginning but only when a non-deferred constraint is found since otherwise
> we're creating and destroying the context and possibly never using it.
I doubt it's worth worrying over. Creation/destruction of a never-used
memory context is pretty cheap, I think.
regards, tom lane
