From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: triggers and inheritance tree |
Date: | 2012-03-28 15:03:40 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobkW5YE4CarbP5T+-wFPKO-xLk798a7iKZsa03teddJhw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I think the problem is that the UPDATE or DELETE can only fire once a
>> matching row has been identified, so that OLD can be filled in
>> appropriately. But in this case, the matching row gets found not in
>> the parent table, but in one of its child tables. So any triggers on
>> the child table would fire, but triggers on the parent table will not.
>
> ah! and of course that makes a lot of sense...
> how embarrasing! :(
If it's any consolation, when I initially looked at your example, I
couldn't see what was wrong with it, either. After I ran it I figured
it out. :-)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-03-28 15:06:01 | Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation) |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-28 15:01:36 | Re: Finer Extension dependencies |