| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take |
| Date: | 2017-04-27 01:30:54 |
| Message-ID: | f219be39-46bb-8d0d-9ba1-b0bbb9fee128@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017/04/27 1:52, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> FWIW, I too prefer the latter, that is, fire only the parent's triggers.
>> In that case, applying only the patch 0001 will do.
>
> Do we need to update the documentation?
Yes, I think we should. How about as in the attached?
By the way, code changes I made in the attached are such that a subsequent
patch could implement firing statement-level triggers of all the tables in
a partition hierarchy, which it seems we don't want to do. Should then
the code be changed to not create ResultRelInfos of all the tables but
only the root table (the one mentioned in the command)? You will see that
the patch adds fields named es_nonleaf_result_relations and
es_num_nonleaf_result_relations, whereas just es_root_result_relation
would perhaps do, for example.
Thanks,
Amit
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Fire-per-statement-triggers-of-partitioned-tables.patch | text/x-diff | 20.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-04-27 01:38:38 | Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-04-27 01:25:38 | Re: Logical replication in the same cluster |