| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: transition table behavior with inheritance appears broken (was: Declarative partitioning - another take) |
| Date: | 2017-05-09 21:57:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20170509215749.thbttlftkrhzie4v@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro wrote:
> Recall that transition tables can be specified for statement-level
> triggers AND row-level triggers. If you specify them for row-level
> triggers, then they can see all rows changed so far each time they
> fire.
Uhmm ... why do we do this? It seems like a great way to cause much
confusion. Shouldn't we see the transition table containing the whole
set for statement-level triggers only, and give row-level triggers just
the individual affected row each time?
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2017-05-09 22:01:01 | Re: CTE inlining |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-05-09 21:51:26 | Re: transition table behavior with inheritance appears broken (was: Declarative partitioning - another take) |