Re: simplifying foreign key/RI checks
От | Keisuke Kuroda |
---|---|
Тема | Re: simplifying foreign key/RI checks |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CANDwggLrk92GQHd0n5cd2M7PS==WK55tYtFNpT=KQaqbe7upgg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: simplifying foreign key/RI checks (Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Amit-san, Thanks for the answer! > If you only tested insert/update on the referencing table, I would've > expected to see nothing in the result of that query, because the patch > eliminates all use of SPI in that case. I suspect the CachedPlan* > memory contexts you are seeing belong to some early activity in the > session. So if you try the insert/update in a freshly started > session, you would see 0 rows in the result of that query. That's right. CREATE PARTITION TABLE included in the test script(rep.sql) was using SPI. In a new session, I confirmed that CachedPlan is not generated when only execute INSERT. # only execute INSERT postgres=# INSERT INTO ps SELECT generate_series(1,4999); INSERT 0 4999 postgres=# postgres=# INSERT INTO pr SELECT i, i from generate_series(1,4999)i; INSERT 0 4999 postgres=# SELECT name, sum(used_bytes) as bytes, pg_size_pretty(sum(used_bytes)) FROM pg_backend_memory_contexts WHERE name LIKE 'Cached%' GROUP BY name; name | bytes | pg_size_pretty ------+-------+---------------- (0 rows) ★ No CachedPlan > Hmm, the patch tries to solve a general problem that SPI plans are not > being shared among partitions whereas they should be. So I don't > think that it's necessarily specific to DELETE. Until we have a > solution like the patch on this thread for DELETE, it seems fine to > consider the other patch as a stopgap solution. I see. So this is a solution to the problem of using SPI plans in partitions, not just DELETE. I agree with you, I think this is a solution to the current problem. Best Regards, -- Keisuke Kuroda NTT Software Innovation Center keisuke.kuroda.3862@gmail.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: