From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>
cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
        Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>,
        keisuke.kuroda.3862@gmail.com, tatsuro.yamada.tf@nttcom.co.jp,
        pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, amitlangote09@gmail.com,
        tatsuhito.kasahara.rd@hco.ntt.co.jp
Subject: Re: Huge memory consumption on partitioned table with FKs
In-reply-to: 
 <CADkLM=cTt_8Fg1Jtij5j+QEBOxz9Cuu4DiMDYOwdtktDAKzuLw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20201126.121818.26523414172308697.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
 <20201201000345.GA15098@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CADkLM=cTt_8Fg1Jtij5j+QEBOxz9Cuu4DiMDYOwdtktDAKzuLw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 30 Nov 2020 21:38:05 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1357736.1606790932.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 21:48:52 -0500
Message-ID: <1357737.1606790932@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com> writes:
> Given that we're already looking at these checks, I was wondering if this
> might be the time to consider implementing these checks by directly
> scanning the constraint index.

Yeah, maybe.  Certainly ri_triggers is putting a huge amount of effort
into working around the SPI/parser/planner layer, to not a lot of gain.

However, it's not clear to me that that line of thought will work well
for the statement-level-trigger approach.  In that case you might be
dealing with enough tuples to make a different plan advisable.

			regards, tom lane