From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <cnliou(at)eurosport(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: What Is The Firing Order? |
Date: | 2001-09-07 21:05:22 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33L2.0109071702110.5974-100000@aguila.protecne.cl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> The order of execution of a set of triggers is ascending by value
> >> of their timestamp of creation in their descriptors, such that the
> >> oldest trigger executes first.
>
> > Yep, that would be a pretty strong vote for OID order.
>
> Au contraire: OID wraparound would cause us to violate the spec.
> If we want to follow the spec here, then I think we'd need to add
> a creation-timestamp column to pg_trigger, and sort on that.
If you are going to create a separate column for sorting, why not just
use a numeric (int8?) value, so one can change that as sees fit? Maybe
associated with a database-wide sequence...
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[(at)]atentus(dot)com>)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2001-09-07 21:07:11 | Re: moving char() to varchar() |
Previous Message | David Ford | 2001-09-07 20:52:34 | Problem w/ dumping huge table and no disk space |