| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stanislav Grozev <tacho(at)daemonz(dot)org>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Incorrect UPDATE trigger invocation in the UPDATE clause of an UPSERT statement. |
| Date: | 2015-12-09 21:43:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20151209214322.GA14789@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2015-12-08 15:32:03 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I actually think that there is an argument to be made for doing
> nothing here, and not allowing a cardinality violation at all.
Works for me. I'll add a short comment before the ExecUpdate() detailing
that the row could, in rather uncommon cases, be updated by that
point. Adding an extra parameter to ExecUpdate() + additional concerns
to it's already nontrivial HTSV codepath doesn't seem worth it to
me.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-12-09 21:52:35 | Re: Incorrect UPDATE trigger invocation in the UPDATE clause of an UPSERT statement. |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-12-09 21:09:51 | Re: BUG #13809: Reassign owned throws error |