Re: FK triggers misused?

From: Andrew - Supernews
Subject: Re: FK triggers misused?
Date: ,
Msg-id: slrnf23eqp.10cj.andrew+nonews@atlantis.supernews.net
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: FK triggers misused?  (cluster)
Responses: Re: FK triggers misused?  (Tom Lane)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

FK triggers misused?  (cluster, )
 Re: FK triggers misused?  (Tom Lane, )
 Re: FK triggers misused?  (Andrew - Supernews, )
  Re: FK triggers misused?  (Tom Lane, )
 Re: FK triggers misused?  (Andrew - Supernews, )
  Re: FK triggers misused?  (cluster, )
   Re: FK triggers misused?  (Tom Lane, )
   Re: FK triggers misused?  (Tom Lane, )
    Re: FK triggers misused?  (cluster, )
 Re: FK triggers misused?  (cluster, )
  Re: FK triggers misused?  (Stephan Szabo, )

On 2007-04-15, Tom Lane <> wrote:
> cluster <> writes:
>> It seems that the FK triggers for the table are evaluated even though
>> none of the FK columns are altered.
>
> Hm, they're not supposed to be, at least not in reasonably modern
> PG releases (and one that breaks out trigger runtime in EXPLAIN ANALYZE
> should be modern enough IIRC).  Exactly which PG release are you
> running?  Can you provide a self-contained test case?

Looking at current CVS code the RI check seems to be skipped on update of
the _referred to_ table if the old and new values match, but not on update
of the _referring_ table.

--
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services


pgsql-performance by date:

From: Andrew - Supernews
Date:
Subject: Re: FK triggers misused?
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: FK triggers misused?