From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
Cc: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Lee Kindness <lkindness(at)csl(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Bulkloading using COPY - ignore duplicates? |
Date: | 2001-10-01 21:38:24 |
Message-ID: | 4609.1001972304@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> writes:
>> The effects don't stop propagating there, either. The decision
>> not to insert the tuple must be reported up still further, so
>> that the executor knows not to run any AFTER INSERT/UPDATE
>> triggers and knows not to count the tuple as inserted/updated
>> for the command completion report.
> But what about BEFORE insert/update triggers which could insert
> records too?
Well, what about them? It's already possible for a later BEFORE trigger
to cause the actual insertion to be suppressed, so I don't see any
difference from what we have now. If a BEFORE trigger takes actions
on the assumption that the insert will happen, it's busted already.
Mind you, I'm not actually advocating that we do any of this ;-).
I was just sketching a possible implementation approach in case someone
wants to try it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-10-01 21:38:27 | Re: HISTORY file |
Previous Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2001-10-01 21:25:41 | Re: Bulkloading using COPY - ignore duplicates? |