Re: Making AFTER triggers act properly in PL functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com> writes:
> Right, but if we search the entire trigger queue from the beginning
> looking for all triggers now immediate and fire them in the EndQuery of
> the set constraints statement contained in D, we'd potentially get an
> ordering like:

> Trigger A start
>  Trigger D start
>   Trigger B start
>   Trigger B end
>   Trigger C start
>   Trigger C end
>  Trigger D end
> Trigger A end

>  rather than:

> Trigger A start
>  Trigger D start
>   Trigger C start
>   Trigger C end
>  Trigger D end
> Trigger A end
> Trigger B start
> Trigger B end

>  where I'd gather the latter is the intended ordering.

I think it'd be very debatable which order is "intended".  I don't feel
a strong need to promise one of these orders over the other.

It does occur to me though that there's another hazard here: refiring
trigger A which is already-in-progress.  We'll need to add another flag
indicating that to the trigger queue entries ...
        regards, tom lane