Re: simplifying foreign key/RI checks - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Langote
Subject Re: simplifying foreign key/RI checks
Date
Msg-id CA+HiwqFK6V0ZJtz=LYk2dBrqy9b_zfLtMaRDn6g1gbSuA5R+Xg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: simplifying foreign key/RI checks  (Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 7:01 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 6:06 PM Keisuke Kuroda
> <keisuke.kuroda.3862@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
>
> Hmm, the patch tries to solve a general problem that SPI plans are not
> being shared among partitions whereas they should be.   So I don't
> think that it's necessarily specific to DELETE.  Until we have a
> solution like the patch on this thread for DELETE, it seems fine to
> consider the other patch as a stopgap solution.

Forgot to mention one thing.  Alvaro, in his last email on that
thread, characterized that patch as fixing a bug, although I may have
misread that.

-- 
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker?
Next
From: Peter Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker?