Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> A much better objective would be to remove duplicate trigger calls, so
>> there isn't any build up of trigger data in the first place. That would
>> apply only to immutable functions. RI checks certainly fall into th
On Sat, 2008-10-25 at 08:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > A much better objective would be to remove duplicate trigger calls, so
> > there isn't any build up of trigger data in the first place. That would
> > apply only to immutable functions. RI checks certa
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A much better objective would be to remove duplicate trigger calls, so
> there isn't any build up of trigger data in the first place. That would
> apply only to immutable functions. RI checks certainly fall into that
> category.
They're hardly "duplicates"
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 21:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> We've occasionally talked about allowing pending-trigger-event lists to
> spill to disk when there get to be so many events that it's a memory
> problem. I'm not especially interested in doing that right now, but
> I noticed recently that we c
We've occasionally talked about allowing pending-trigger-event lists to
spill to disk when there get to be so many events that it's a memory
problem. I'm not especially interested in doing that right now, but
I noticed recently that we could alleviate the problem a lot by adopting
a more compact r
