Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?)
Date
Msg-id 9288ff8b-3b6f-4ab5-e1a0-b9cff1a6d466@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?)  (Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2021-01-08 09:54, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> I don't quite recall if the decision to implement it like this was
>>> based on assuming that this is what users would like to see happen in
>>> this case or the perceived difficulty of implementing it the other way
>>> around, that is, of firing AFTER UPDATE triggers in this case.
>> I tried to look that up, but I couldn't find any discussion about this. Do you have any ideas in which thread that
washandled?
 
> It was discussed here:
> 
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAJ3gD9do9o2ccQ7j7%2BtSgiE1REY65XRiMb%3DyJO3u3QhyP8EEPQ%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> It's a huge discussion, so you'll have to ctrl+f "trigger" to spot
> relevant emails.  You might notice that the developers who
> participated in that discussion gave various opinions and what we have
> today got there as a result of a majority of them voting for the
> current approach.  Someone also said this during the discussion:
> "Regarding the trigger issue, I can't claim to have a terribly strong
> opinion on this. I think that practically anything we do here might
> upset somebody, but probably any halfway-reasonable thing we choose to
> do will be OK for most people." So what we've got is that
> "halfway-reasonable" thing, YMMV. :)

Could you summarize here what you are trying to do with respect to what 
was decided before?  I'm a bit confused, looking through the patches you 
have posted.  The first patch you posted hard-coded FK trigger OIDs 
specifically, other patches talk about foreign key triggers in general 
or special case internal triggers or talk about all triggers.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Boundary value check in lazy_tid_reaped()
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Release SPI plans for referential integrity with DISCARD ALL