Re: Remembering bug #6123 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kevin Grittner
Subject Re: Remembering bug #6123
Date
Msg-id 4F10517302000025000447C3@gw.wicourts.gov
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Remembering bug #6123  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> What do you think of
> 
> ERROR: tuple to be updated was already modified by an operation
> triggered by the UPDATE command
> HINT: Consider using an AFTER trigger instead of a BEFORE trigger
> to propagate changes to other rows.
> 
> (s/update/delete/ for the DELETE case of course)
> 
> The phrase "triggered by" seems slippery enough to cover cases
> such as a volatile function executed by the UPDATE.  The HINT
> doesn't cover that case of course, but we have a ground rule that
> HINTs can be wrong.
Looks good to me.
-Kevin


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Remembering bug #6123
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: 9.3 feature proposal: vacuumdb -j #