| From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Making AFTER triggers act properly in PL functions |
| Date: | 2004-09-07 23:05:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20040907160325.E17044@megazone.bigpanda.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> > If I'm reading the above correctly, I think DeferredTriggerSetState may
> > need to change a little if EndQuery works on a separate list of triggers
> > because I believe set constraints immediate currently depends on EndQuery
> > going over the entire list of saved deferred triggers.
>
> But it would. What I'm imagining is that the current list remains the
> same, but it only contains trigger events from already-completed statements.
> The per-query lists would be "staging areas" for gathering events from
> still-active statements.
I misread then. I thought that you were proposing that EndQuery look only
at the per-query list and then add the deferred items that weren't fired
to the main list but never go over that list.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-09-07 23:13:11 | Re: Making AFTER triggers act properly in PL functions |
| Previous Message | Thomas F.O'Connell | 2004-09-07 22:59:37 | Re: contrib/start-scripts/linux on Debian |