Re: Why are triggers semi-deferred?

From: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why are triggers semi-deferred?
Date: 2003-07-13 02:02:58
Message-ID: 5.1.0.14.0.20030713120109.03a024d0@mail.rhyme.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

At 10:38 AM 12/07/2003 -0700, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> deferred after trigger row 1
> deferred after trigger #2 row a
> deferred after trigger row 2
> deferred after trigger #2 row b

I'd vote for this; ie. make them execute in the same order they would
execute if they were not deferred. Otherwise you open up all sorts of weird
application errors if a trigger is deferred/not-deferred.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.B.N. 75 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \
Fax: (+61) 03 5330 3172 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shridhar Daithankar 2003-07-13 10:11:08 Re: Tuning PostgreSQL
Previous Message Kenji Sugita 2003-07-13 00:06:14 vacuumdb can't be canceled