On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 13:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The main thing that is bothering me is something Dean pointed out at
> the very beginning: the patch will not scale well for large numbers of
> conflicts.
The way I see it, there are two strategies:
(a) build up a list as you go, and check it later
(b) do a check of the full table at once
Is there another reasonable option?
The patch seems like a reasonable implementation of (a), so what it's
missing is the ability to fall back to (b) when the list gets too large
(compared with available memory or relative to the table size).
Are you suggesting that we wait until (b) is implemented, or do you
envision something else entirely?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
