From: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Elliot Lee <sopwith(at)redhat(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Fix disabled triggers with deferred constraints |
Date: | 2002-08-07 18:09:40 |
Message-ID: | 874re6fsm3.fsf@klamath.dyndns.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> writes:
> > Elliot Lee <sopwith(at)redhat(dot)com> writes:
> > I remember looking at this issue and not doing anything because I
> > couldn't decide whether the test for enabled status should occur when
> > the trigger is queued or when it is executed --- or, perhaps, both?
> > Is there anything in the standard about it?
[...]
> I think we're still waiting for someone to figure out what the behavior
> should be per spec.
I took a brief look at SQL99, but I couldn't find anything regarding
this issue (AFAICS it doesn't mention "disabled triggers" at all). But
given my prior track record for divining information from the
standards, perhaps someone should double-check :-)
I did notice some behavior which we don't implement AFAIK:
If the constraint mode is /deferred/, then the constraint is
effectively checked when the constraint mode is changed to
/immediate/ either explicitely by execution of a <set
constraints mode statement>, or implicitely at the end of the
current SQL-transaction.
(SQL99, Section 4.17.1, paragraph 3)
We don't recheck any outstanding deferred constraints when the
constraint mode is explicitly switched back to IMMEDIATE, as the
standard says we should.
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2002-08-07 18:31:40 | Re: CLUSTER patch and regression test |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2002-08-07 16:55:47 | Re: Proposal: stand-alone composite types |