Re: foreign keys and RI triggers

On Thu, 26 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:

> Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com> writes:
> > On Thu, 26 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The thoughts I've had about special-casing RI events to save memory
> >> have to do with the idea of lossy storage.
>
> > One problem with that is that it works for the constraint check but not
> > for referential actions,
>
> True.  But even fixing it only for constraint checks would be a win.

Yeah, I'm just wondering if going the extra step and forcing really really
immediate referential actions (even if that sometimes means adding a no
action trigger on the event as well) would be worth doing as that could
remove the queued pk actions for cascade and set null as well and at least
turn the queued pk action for set default into one that could be
consolidated.