Re: Making AFTER triggers act properly in PL functions

Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
>> As long as we're talking about hack-slash-and-burn on this data
>> structure ...

> Where the OtherInformation could be shared within the statement (for
> identical events)? I think it'd be problematic to try sharing between
> statements.

Yeah, I had come to the same conclusion after more thought. But we
could certainly aggregate all the similar events generated by a single
query into a common status structure.

> But, I'm sort of assuming the following are true:
> Once a group of items is marked to be run, all items will run even if set
> constraints ... deferred happens while the run occurs.

That's a good question. If the first trigger firing tries to set the
event deferred, what happens to the remaining triggers? The SQL spec
doesn't even touch this question, so I think we are at liberty to do
what we like. I don't see that it's unreasonable to continue to fire
events that were marked as firable when we reached the end of the
current statement.

> If an error occurs, either the entire set of event objects for the
> statement are going away because they're new, or if it was something run
> from set constraints we're going to want to rerun the entire set anyway.

Right, that was what I was thinking.

regards, tom lane