Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1J_RYCtrUmMDygwRV5oAEE-hOkkLcQUaMq2dHA_vAd9FQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key  (Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan.pg@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Earlier I thought that option1 is better but later I think that this
>>> can complicate the situation as we are firing first BR update then BR
>>> delete and can change the row multiple time and defining such
>>> behaviour can be complicated.
>>>
>>
>> If we have to go by this theory, then the option you have preferred
>> will still execute BR triggers for both delete and insert, so input
>> row can still be changed twice.
>
> Yeah, right as per my theory above Option3 have the same problem.
>
> But after putting some more thought I realised that only for "Before
> Update" or the "Before Insert" trigger row can be changed.
>

Before Row Delete triggers can suppress the delete operation itself
which is kind of unintended in this case.  I think without the user
being aware it doesn't seem advisable to execute multiple BR triggers.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [bug fix] PG10: libpq doesn't connect to alternativehosts when some errors occur
Next
From: Sveinn Sveinsson
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] BUG #14657: Server process segmentation fault in v10, May10th dev snapshot