"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> "Tom Lane" <[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 temporary 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 temporary 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 support! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
