Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> In the meantime, it seems like you agree that rejecting wCTEs that
>> affect tables with triggers with transition tables is the best
>> response to this bug report? Do you think that parse analysis is the
>> right time to do the check? Here's a first attempt at that.
FWIW, parse analysis is surely NOT the time for such a check. Triggers
might get added to a table between analysis and execution. I think you
might have to do it during executor startup.
> I'm starting to like the approach of reverting the entire transition
> tables patch. Failing to consider the possibility of a plan with
> multiple ModifyTable nodes seems like a pretty fundamental design
> mistake, and I'm not eager either to ship this with that broken or try
> to fix it at this stage of the release cycle.
Postponing the feature to v11 might be a viable solution. We don't
have any other major work that depends on it do we?
regards, tom lane
