Re: [HACKERS] Status on Jan Wieck

>
> > >     Depends on WHEN 6.6 is planned to go into feature-freeze.
> >
> > Well, I believe that we have at least 3 months before 1st beta.
> > We need in DIRTY READs for RI and I'll implement them.
> > If you'll not be able to do RI itself then we might
> > change refint.c to use DIRTY READs and so avoid LOCK TABLE
> > on application level (i.e. restore pre-6.5 refint.c using).
>
> Yikes.  Three months.  That puts us at release in mid-January.

    Three  months  - sounds fine. I just posted another few ideas
    on the issue. After rereading it, I'm sure now that doing  RI
    with  the  rulesystem  would  open  a  horrible can of worms.
    Especially in the case a trigger procedure is using  a  query
    which in turn triggers a deferred rule.

    Each  trigger  invocation  (maybe for thousands of rows) will
    execute it's own queries, resulting in a  separate  parsetree
    for the deferred actions.  Where to hold them? Parsetrees can
    be huge!

    I'm sure now that remembering the CTID's of the  tuples  that
    must get reread to fire the trigger is the smaller problem.

    I  need a little break in my current project - thus I'll take
    a look at it NOW!


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#========================================= wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #