Does 'instead of delete' trigger support modification of OLD - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Eugen Konkov
Subject Does 'instead of delete' trigger support modification of OLD
Date
Msg-id 919823407.20191029175436@yandex.ru
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Does 'instead of delete' trigger support modification of OLD
Re: Does 'instead of delete' trigger support modification of OLD
List pgsql-hackers
Hi.

This is not clear from doc, so I have asked on IRC too.

from the DOC: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/trigger-definition.html
In the case of  INSTEAD OF triggers, the possibly-modified row returned by each trigger becomes the input to the next
trigger

I modify OLD row, thus I expect to get modified version when run next query: 

    WITH t1 AS( delete from abc returning *)
    select * from t1;

fiddle: https://dbfiddle.uk/?rdbms=postgres_12&fiddle=637730305f66bf531794edb09a462c95

> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/trigger-definition.html
A row-level INSTEAD OF trigger should either return NULL to indicate that it did not modify any data from the view's
underlyingbase tables,
 
or it should return the view row that was passed in (the NEW row for INSERT and UPDATE operations, or the OLD row for
DELETEoperations).
 
A nonnull return value is used to signal that the trigger performed the necessary data modifications in the view.
This will cause the count of the number of rows affected by the command to be incremented. For INSERT and UPDATE
operations,the trigger may
 
modify the NEW row before returning it. This will change the data returned by INSERT RETURNING or UPDATE RETURNING,
and is useful when the view will not show exactly the same data that was provided.

But I still does not understand. Doc explicitly do not prohibit modification of OLD and has no examples for DELETE
RETURNINGcase
 

So I want to ask clarify doc a bit.
If this prohibited, why this is prohibited? have any discussion on this?
If not prohibited, does this is not implemented for DELETE RETURNING queries? if so, is it left for later?

I have next use case.
I am implementing Bi-Temporal tables. The table have columns: id, app_period, value
for example I have next data: 7, '[2019-01-01, 2020-01-01)', 130
You can imagine this as having value 7 for each day of the year.
Now I want to delete this value for May month. I setup special variable to period: '[2019-05-01,2019-06-01)' and then
delete:

    select app_period( '[2019-05-01,2019-06-01)' );
    WITH t1 AS( delete from abc returning *)
    select * from t1;

Algorithm of deletion is next:
1. Deactivate target row
   7, '[2019-01-01, 2020-01-01)', 130
2. If target row has wider app_period then we insert record that data back:
      NOT '[2019-05-01,2019-06-01)' @> '[2019-01-01, 2020-01-01)'
    INSERT INTO abc ( id, app_period, value ) values 
        ( 7, '[2019-01-01,2019-05-01)', 130 ),
        ( 7, '[2019-06-01,2020-01-01)', 130 ),
3. OLD.app_period = OLD.app_period * app_period(); 
    '[2019-01-01, 2020-01-01)' * '[2019-05-01,2019-06-01)' --> '[2019-05-01,2019-06-01)'

Because only 130 value is deleted from specified period I expect next result for the query above:
     ( 7, '[2019-05-01,2019-06-01)', 130 )

But despite on OLD was modified, actual result is:
     ( 7, '[2019-01-01,2020-01-01)', 130 )
You can see that this is original data.

So, does INSTEAD OF DELETE support modification of row?

-- 
Best regards,
Eugen Konkov




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: alternative to PG_CATCH
Next
From: Vik Fearing
Date:
Subject: Re: Join Correlation Name