Re: Making AFTER triggers act properly in PL functions

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Making AFTER triggers act properly in PL functions
Дата
Msg-id 589.1094702873@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Making AFTER triggers act properly in PL functions  (Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com> writes:
> Definately.  The ~20 byte/row gain for large updates/insert/delete is
> worth it. I think it'd actually increase the size for the single row case
> since we'd have the pointer to deal with (we could use a flag that tells
> us whether this item actually has a pointer to a shared status structure
> or just contains the status structure but that seems kinda ugly).

Yeah.  I can't see that anyone will care about another few bytes in
single-row cases --- the other per-query overheads will swamp this one.
The only cases we've ever heard complaints about are this-query-updated-
umpteen-zillion rows cases, and they were always umpteen zillion cases
of the same trigger.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: APR 1.0 released
Следующее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: APR 1.0 released