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

From Dilip Kumar
Subject Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key
Date
Msg-id CAFiTN-uec3vbjNhh8AsqPm_vUVkunym--w9Z46e7Wzx1_pp8mw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
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. Correct me
if I am assuming something wrong?

So now again option3 will make more sense.

-- 
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] UPDATE of partition key
Next
From: Jeevan Ladhe
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] remove unnecessary flag has_null from PartitionBoundInfoData