Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
Here is an updated version of the COPY \x patch. It is the first patch
attached.
Also, I realized that if we support \x in COPY, we should also support
\x in strings to the backend. This is the second patch.
Do we really want to do any of these thin
This patch implements an idea discussed on -hackers recently: if an
UPDATE on a table with a foreign key does not modify any of the table's
foreign key columns, we can avoid enqueueing the foreign queue check
trigger.
I basically just moved the logic for the "are the keys equal?" test from
th
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I basically just moved the logic for the "are the keys equal?" test from
> the FK trigger itself into the code that enqueues the trigger. I then
> removed the keys-are-equal check from the FK trigger. I also had to
> change (somewhat awkwardly) RI_FKey_k
Tom Lane wrote:
You seem to have also done a fair amount of unrelated hacking around.
What's the point of removing the distinction between check_ins and
check_upd functions?
I talked about this in an earlier message to -hackers: check_upd was
actually unused (check_ins was used for both insert
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> What's the point of removing the distinction between check_ins and
>> check_upd functions?
> I talked about this in an earlier message to -hackers: check_upd was
> actually unused (check_ins was used for both inserts and updates).
Hm,
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The patch adds a new choice "open_direct" to wal_sync_method.
> Have you looked at what the performance difference of this option is?
Yes, I've tested pgbench and dbt2 and their performances have improved.
The two results are as follows:
1. pgbench -s
On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 21:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hmm, I suppose -- if you prefer I can have check_ins called by the
> > INSERT trigger and check_upd called by the UPDATE trigger, which
> > probably makes more sense.
>
> Yeah ... I thought it was do
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Attached are two patches: one that changes ADD FOREIGN KEY to create
> separate ON INSERT and ON UPDATE triggers that invoke different trigger
> functions, and a revised version of the FK UPDATE enqueuing patch.
Looks OK to me. Don't forget that the first
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wonder if we're benchmarking the right thing, though: is
> opening a file with O_DIRECT sufficient to ensure that a write(2) does
> not return until the data has hit disk?
Some googling suggests so, eg
http://www.die.net/doc/linux/man/man2/open.2.html
T
