Re: foreign keys and RI triggers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Neil Conway
Subject Re: foreign keys and RI triggers
Date
Msg-id 4295D668.3010605@samurai.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: foreign keys and RI triggers  (Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com>)
Responses Re: foreign keys and RI triggers
List pgsql-hackers
Stephan Szabo wrote:
> Are you sure? RI_FKey_Check seems to have a section on
> TRIGGER_FIRED_BY_UPDATE which seems to check if the keys are equal if the
> old row wasn't part of this transaction.

Well, regardless of how RI_FKey_Check() itself works, ISTM there is no 
need to enqueue the RI trigger in the first place. That's when the 
update-on-PK-table optimization is applied -- see trigger.c circa 3005. 
The specific case I was looking at resulted in the postgres backend 
allocating a few hundred MB just to store all the pending RI triggers, 
even though the UPDATE in question didn't change the foreign key field, 
so it didn't matter a great deal how quickly RI_FKey_Check() was able to 
bail out.

> If I'm understanding the question, there's two things.  First is deferred
> constraints

Right -- obviously we can't fire RI triggers for deferred constraints 
immediately. Immediate constraints are the common case, though.

> constraints happen after the entire statement.
> In a case like:
> insert into pk values(2);
> insert into pk values(1);
> insert into fk values(2);
> update pk set key=key+1;

Hmm, good point. But ISTM there are still some circumstances in which we 
can safely check the RI trigger immediately, rather than at end of 
statement. For example, updating the FK table, inserting into the FK 
table, or deleting from the PK table.

-Neil


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephan Szabo
Date:
Subject: Re: foreign keys and RI triggers
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: soundex and metaphone