Re: Adding the optional clause 'AS' in CREATE TRIGGER

From: "Okano, Naoki" <okano(dot)naoki(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Adding the optional clause 'AS' in CREATE TRIGGER
Date: 2017-03-09 04:00:32
Message-ID: 0B4917A40C80E34BBEC4BE1A7A9AB7E27ACD05@g01jpexmbkw05
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 3/8/17 04:12, Okano, Naoki wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> I have a feeling that this was proposed a few times in the ancient past
> >> but did not go through because of locking issues. I can't find any
> >> emails about it through. Does anyone remember? Have you thought about
> >> locking issues?
> > Is this e-mail you are finding?
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20140916124537.GH25887%40awork2.anarazel.de
>
> No, that's not the one I had in mind.
I see. But I could only find it.
Would anyone know e-mails discussed about locking issues?

> > I am considering to add 'OR REPLACE' clause as a first step.
> > At least, I think there is no need to change the locking level when replacing a trigger with 'EXECUTE PROCEDURE' clause.
> > In PostgreSQL, we currently have ShareRowExclusiveLock lock on relation on which trigger is created. ShareRowExclusiveLock is enough to replace a trigger.
> > Also, we currently have RowExclusiveLock on pg_trigger. RowExclusiveLock is enough to replace a trigger, too.
>
> I'm not saying it's not correct. I was just wondering.
Thank you for your opinion!
I think we do not need to change locking level in this case.
If someone notice a mistake in my understanding, please point out it.

Regards,
Okano Naoki
Fujitsu

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rushabh Lathia 2017-03-09 04:59:25 Re: Gather Merge
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2017-03-09 03:18:30 Re: [PATCH] Off-by-one error in logical slot resource retention