On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 9:48 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Corey Huinker <corey.huin...@gmail.com> writes: > > Given that we're already looking at these checks, I was wondering if this > > might be the time to consider implementing these checks by directly > > scanning the constraint index. > > Yeah, maybe. Certainly ri_triggers is putting a huge amount of effort > into working around the SPI/parser/planner layer, to not a lot of gain. > > However, it's not clear to me that that line of thought will work well > for the statement-level-trigger approach. In that case you might be > dealing with enough tuples to make a different plan advisable. > > regards, tom lane >
Bypassing SPI would probably mean that we stay with row level triggers, and the cached query plan would go away, perhaps replaced by an already-looked-up-this-tuple hash sorta like what the cached nested loops effort is doing. I've been meaning to give this a try when I got some spare time. This may inspire me to try again.
