Re: WIP fix proposal for bug #6123 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: WIP fix proposal for bug #6123
Date
Msg-id 18974.1347561944@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP fix proposal for bug #6123  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
Responses Re: WIP fix proposal for bug #6123  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
> At any rate, I think we might want to apply Tom's patch for this
> while 9.3 is still early in development, to see what else might
> shake out from it while there is still plenty of time to fix any
> issues.  It's now looking good from my perspective.

I just re-read the thread to refresh my memory.  It seems that we pretty
much had consensus on throwing an error if any operation fired by a
BEFORE UPDATE/DELETE trigger changes the target row, unless the trigger
returns NULL to skip the update/delete.  It is not clear to me however
whether we had consensus about what to do with SELECT FOR UPDATE locking
cases.  The last patch posted in the thread was here:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-01/msg01241.php

That message includes an example of the FOR UPDATE problem case and
says that fixing it would require significantly more work.  Do we
want to worry about tackling that now, or shall we be satisfied with
fixing the trigger cases?

Also, it doesn't appear that we ever got around to preparing
documentation updates, but I think we definitely need some if we're
going to start throwing errors for things that used to be allowed.
Since Kevin has the most field experience with this problem,
I'd like to nominate him to write some docs ...
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown
Next
From: daniela florescu
Date:
Subject: XML/JSON processing in Postgres