| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Okano, Naoki" <okano(dot)naoki(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Adding the optional clause 'AS' in CREATE TRIGGER |
| Date: | 2017-03-08 13:28:21 |
| Message-ID: | a06f4b7b-12df-ea1d-ea1d-c0b41e44c6ac@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/8/17 04:12, Okano, Naoki wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I have a feeling that this was proposed a few times in the ancient past
>> but did not go through because of locking issues. I can't find any
>> emails about it through. Does anyone remember? Have you thought about
>> locking issues?
> Is this e-mail you are finding?
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20140916124537.GH25887%40awork2.anarazel.de
No, that's not the one I had in mind.
> I am considering to add 'OR REPLACE' clause as a first step.
> At least, I think there is no need to change the locking level when replacing a trigger with 'EXECUTE PROCEDURE' clause.
> In PostgreSQL, we currently have ShareRowExclusiveLock lock on relation on which trigger is created. ShareRowExclusiveLock is enough to replace a trigger.
> Also, we currently have RowExclusiveLock on pg_trigger. RowExclusiveLock is enough to replace a trigger, too.
I'm not saying it's not correct. I was just wondering.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-08 13:28:41 | Re: Parallel seq. plan is not coming against inheritance or partition table |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-03-08 13:27:30 | Re: Skip all-visible pages during second HeapScan of CIC |