"Tom Lane" <tgl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> Gregory Stark <stark@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>> "Tom Lane" <tgl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>> This is expected to take lots of memory because each
row-requiring-check
>>> generates an entry in the pending trigger event list.
>
>> Hm, it occurs to me that we could still do a join against the pending
event
>> trigger list... I wonder how feasible it would be to store the pending
trigger
>> event list in a tem****ary table instead of in ram.
>
> We could make that list spill to disk, but the problem remains that
> verifying the rows one at a time will take forever.
Well I was thinking if we did a join between a tem****ary table and the fk
target then it wouldn't have to be a one-by-one operation. It could be a
merge
join if the planner thought that was better. How to get accurate stats
into
the planner at that point would be a missing detail though.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres sup****t!
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
