| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: with and trigger |
| Date: | 2019-05-29 15:21:29 |
| Message-ID: | 2699.1559143289@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Ron <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 5/29/19 8:26 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This doesn't explicitly talk about triggers, but I think our attitude
>> about the case you're discussing is that the results are unspecified.
>> If a trigger fired in one WITH arm tries to look at the table(s)
>> modified by other WITH arms, it might or might not see those changes.
> Are CTEs still optimization fences?
> https://www.2ndquadrant.com/en/blog/postgresql-ctes-are-optimization-fences/
Yes, if they contain data-modifying statements ... but that's not
relevant to the point at hand, which is that the run-time behavior
is not specified.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julie Nishimura | 2019-05-29 16:41:36 | Re: POSTGRES_FSM_RELATIONS CRITICAL: DB control fsm relations used: 79569 of 80000 (99%) |
| Previous Message | Andreas Kretschmer | 2019-05-29 15:12:03 | Re: with and trigger |