Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com> writes:
> Well, I wonder if the check is so weak as to be fairly useless in the
> first place really, even if applied to the statement as opposed to the
> transaction.
Looking back at our discussion around 24-Oct, I recall that I was
leaning to the idea that the correct interpretation of the spec's
"triggered data change" rule is that it prohibits scenarios that are
impossible anyway under MVCC, because of the MVCC tuple visibility
rules. Therefore we don't need any explicit test for triggered data
change. But I didn't hear anyone else supporting or disproving
that idea.
The code as-is is certainly wrong, since it prohibits multiple changes
within a transaction, not within a statement as the spec says.
Right at the moment I'd favor ripping the code out entirely ... but
it'd be good to hear some support for that approach. Comments anyone?
regards, tom lane
