| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: UPDATE SET (a,b,c) = (SELECT ...) versus rules |
| Date: | 2014-06-14 20:44:10 |
| Message-ID: | 10919.1402778650@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-06-14 15:48:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, it wouldn't be "unsafe" (barring volatile functions in the UPDATE,
>> which are unsafe already). It might be slow, but that's probably better
>> than failing.
> I forgot the details, but IIRC it's possible to write a ON UPDATE ...
> DO INSTEAD rule that's safe wrt multiple evaluations today by calling a
> function passing in the old pkey and NEW. At least I believed so at some
> point in the past :P
Hm. But you might as well use a trigger, no? Is anyone likely to
actually be doing such a thing?
It's conceivable that we could optimize the special case of NEW.*,
especially if it appears in the rule query's targetlist. But it's
trouble I don't really care to undertake ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-06-14 20:51:06 | crash with assertions and WAL_DEBUG |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-06-14 19:52:30 | Re: UPDATE SET (a,b,c) = (SELECT ...) versus rules |