Thread: Trigger definition . . . puzzled
Greetings list, Running pg 8.2.3. on a windows machine, I have become blind in a trigger definition puzzle, so hope that somebody may help me understand where I goof. I have a base table i_s that has three tables that inherit from it, one of them being i_s_nowhere. The base table should be left empty, but I want it to be the prime port of call for data changes. Hence the following set-up. Let me try to be brief, in the hope of not leaving out relevant detail. Base table def is as follows: CREATE TABLE i_s (sidx integer NOT NULL, -- The s identifiergid integer NOT NULL, -- The i identifierstatus character(1),confirmation character(1),CONSTRAINTpk_is PRIMARY KEY (sidx, gid) ) WITH (OIDS=FALSE); And the trigger definition is here: CREATE TRIGGER aw_archival_is2BEFORE UPDATE OR INSERT OR DELETEON i_sFOR EACH ROWEXECUTE PROCEDURE aw_archive_test(); And the trigger function: CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION aw_archive_test()RETURNS "trigger" AS $BODY$ BEGINRAISE WARNING 'Starting isa trigger for %', TG_OP;IF (TG_OP = 'UPDATE') THEN RAISE WARNING 'Calling insert_isa withupdate';ELSIF (TG_OP = 'INSERT') THEN RAISE WARNING 'Calling insert_isa with insert';ELSIF (TG_OP = 'DELETE') THEN RAISE WARNING 'Calling insert_isa with delete';END IF; RETURN NULL; END; $BODY$LANGUAGE 'plpgsql' VOLATILE; The trigger is enabled. Yes, this does intentionally nothing. The real code will obviously take care of data change in proper subtables. Well, the trigger should do nothing now . . . What I cannot get round to understanding is that an insert attempt will nicely give me two warnings, and will not insert, as expected with this code: WARNING: Starting isa trigger for INSERTWARNING: Calling insert_isa with insert Query returned successfully: 0 rows affected, 31 ms execution time. But an attempt to update actually magically goes to the proper subtable and performs the update: Query returned successfully: 1 rows affected, 16 ms execution time. Where did I deserve this?? ;-) In attempts to solve this I did mess around with trigger and trigger function definitions a bit. Could there be funny traces of this? What is the best way to analyse this behavior? I am testing from a pgAdmin 1.8 setup. All suggestions welcome! -- Rolf A. de By The Netherlands
On Dec 12, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Rolf A. de By wrote: > Greetings list, > > Running pg 8.2.3. on a windows machine, I have become blind in a > trigger definition puzzle, so hope that somebody may help me > understand where I goof. > > I have a base table i_s that has three tables that inherit from it, > one of them being i_s_nowhere. The base table should be left > empty, but I want it to be the prime port of call for data > changes. Hence the following set-up. Let me try to be brief, in > the hope of not leaving out relevant detail. > > Base table def is as follows: > > CREATE TABLE i_s > ( > sidx integer NOT NULL, -- The s identifier > gid integer NOT NULL, -- The i identifier > status character(1), > confirmation character(1), > CONSTRAINT pk_is PRIMARY KEY (sidx, gid) > ) > WITH (OIDS=FALSE); > > And the trigger definition is here: > > CREATE TRIGGER aw_archival_is2 > BEFORE UPDATE OR INSERT OR DELETE > ON i_s > FOR EACH ROW > EXECUTE PROCEDURE aw_archive_test(); > > And the trigger function: > > CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION aw_archive_test() > RETURNS "trigger" AS > $BODY$ > BEGIN > RAISE WARNING 'Starting isa trigger for %', TG_OP; > IF (TG_OP = 'UPDATE') THEN > RAISE WARNING 'Calling insert_isa with update'; > ELSIF (TG_OP = 'INSERT') THEN > RAISE WARNING 'Calling insert_isa with insert'; > ELSIF (TG_OP = 'DELETE') THEN > RAISE WARNING 'Calling insert_isa with delete'; > END IF; RETURN NULL; > END; > $BODY$ > LANGUAGE 'plpgsql' VOLATILE; > > The trigger is enabled. > > Yes, this does intentionally nothing. The real code will obviously > take care of data change in proper subtables. Well, the trigger > should do nothing now . . . What I cannot get round to > understanding is that an insert attempt will nicely give me two > warnings, and will not insert, as expected with this code: > > WARNING: Starting isa trigger for INSERT > WARNING: Calling insert_isa with insert > > Query returned successfully: 0 rows affected, 31 ms execution time. > > But an attempt to update actually magically goes to the proper > subtable and performs the update: > > Query returned successfully: 1 rows affected, 16 ms execution time. > > Where did I deserve this?? ;-) > > In attempts to solve this I did mess around with trigger and > trigger function definitions a bit. Could there be funny traces of > this? What is the best way to analyse this behavior? I am testing > from a pgAdmin 1.8 setup. The function you've shown won't do anything because BEFORE row triggers that return NULL don't do anything (for that row). If you want the operation to continue without any modification then just return NEW. Erik Jones Software Developer | Emma® erik@myemma.com 800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888 615.292.0777 (fax) Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style. Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com
Erik, Thanks for that. There is some misunderstanding here. For this example, I had taken the sting out of my trigger function and turned it into a much more concise no-op, with warnings. The actual code of my original trigger function is irrelevant. The no-op trigger function displays the same strange behaviour: it works as expected for INSERTs, but not for UPDATEs. The update goes through! And it shouldn't. My question to the list is how I can analyze what is happening here, I am lost at where to start on that. Rolf > Greetings list, > > Running pg 8.2.3. on a windows machine, I have become blind in a > trigger definition puzzle, so hope that somebody may help me > understand where I goof. > > I have a base table i_s that has three tables that inherit from it, > one of them being i_s_nowhere. The base table should be left empty, > but I want it to be the prime port of call for data changes. Hence > the following set-up. Let me try to be brief, in the hope of not > leaving out relevant detail. > > Base table def is as follows: > > CREATE TABLE i_s > ( > sidx integer NOT NULL, -- The s identifier > gid integer NOT NULL, -- The i identifier > status character(1), > confirmation character(1), > CONSTRAINT pk_is PRIMARY KEY (sidx, gid) > ) > WITH (OIDS=FALSE); > > And the trigger definition is here: > > CREATE TRIGGER aw_archival_is2 > BEFORE UPDATE OR INSERT OR DELETE > ON i_s > FOR EACH ROW > EXECUTE PROCEDURE aw_archive_test(); > > And the trigger function: > > CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION aw_archive_test() > RETURNS "trigger" AS > $BODY$ > BEGIN > RAISE WARNING 'Starting isa trigger for %', TG_OP; > IF (TG_OP = 'UPDATE') THEN > RAISE WARNING 'Calling insert_isa with update'; > ELSIF (TG_OP = 'INSERT') THEN > RAISE WARNING 'Calling insert_isa with insert'; > ELSIF (TG_OP = 'DELETE') THEN > RAISE WARNING 'Calling insert_isa with delete'; > END IF; RETURN NULL; > END; > $BODY$ > LANGUAGE 'plpgsql' VOLATILE; > > The trigger is enabled. > > Yes, this does intentionally nothing. The real code will obviously > take care of data change in proper subtables. Well, the trigger > should do nothing now . . . What I cannot get round to understanding > is that an insert attempt will nicely give me two warnings, and will > not insert, as expected with this code: > > WARNING: Starting isa trigger for INSERT > WARNING: Calling insert_isa with insert > > Query returned successfully: 0 rows affected, 31 ms execution time. > > But an attempt to update actually magically goes to the proper > subtable and performs the update: > > Query returned successfully: 1 rows affected, 16 ms execution time. > > Where did I deserve this?? ;-) > > In attempts to solve this I did mess around with trigger and trigger > function definitions a bit. Could there be funny traces of this? > What is the best way to analyse this behavior? I am testing from a > pgAdmin 1.8 setup. The function you've shown won't do anything because BEFORE row triggers that return NULL don't do anything (for that row). If you want the operation to continue without any modification then just return NEW. Erik Jones
"Rolf A. de By" <deby@itc.nl> writes:
> Thanks for that. There is some misunderstanding here. For this example,
> I had taken the sting out of my trigger function and turned it into a
> much more concise no-op, with warnings. The actual code of my original
> trigger function is irrelevant. The no-op trigger function displays the
> same strange behaviour: it works as expected for INSERTs, but not for
> UPDATEs. The update goes through! And it shouldn't.
Reading between the lines, I gather you have an inheritance setup and
are expecting a trigger on the parent table to fire for events occurring
in the child tables. Doesn't work like that; you need to put triggers
on the child tables.
regards, tom lane
Thanks Tom, Yes, this is an inheritance set-up. But actually no: I am executing all my data changes against the parent table, and want the trigger on that parent table to fire for an insert on the parent table as it does. But I also want the trigger to fire when an update on the parent table is executed, and this does not happen. Rolf Tom Lane wrote: > "Rolf A. de By" <deby@itc.nl> writes: > >> Thanks for that. There is some misunderstanding here. For this example, >> I had taken the sting out of my trigger function and turned it into a >> much more concise no-op, with warnings. The actual code of my original >> trigger function is irrelevant. The no-op trigger function displays the >> same strange behaviour: it works as expected for INSERTs, but not for >> UPDATEs. The update goes through! And it shouldn't. >> > > Reading between the lines, I gather you have an inheritance setup and > are expecting a trigger on the parent table to fire for events occurring > in the child tables. Doesn't work like that; you need to put triggers > on the child tables. > > regards, tom lane > -- dr ir Rolf A. de By assoc prof Geodata Management and Engineering dept Geoinformation Processing ITC -- International Institute for Geo-information Science & Earth Observation Hengelosestraat 99 7500 AA Enschede, The Netherlands ph +31 53 4874553 fx +31 53 4874335 email deby@itc.nl
"Rolf A. de By" <deby@itc.nl> writes:
> Yes, this is an inheritance set-up. But actually no: I am executing all
> my data changes against the parent table, and want the trigger on that
> parent table to fire for an insert on the parent table as it does. But
> I also want the trigger to fire when an update on the parent table is
> executed, and this does not happen.
There is no update on any row in the parent table. The update is on a
row in a child table.
regards, tom lane
Ouch, that hurts! It suddenly dawns on me . . . Big difference on table that you specify and table where it actually takes effect. Confusing at first. Thanks a million, Tom. > "Rolf A. de By" <deby@itc.nl> writes: > >> Yes, this is an inheritance set-up. But actually no: I am executing all >> my data changes against the parent table, and want the trigger on that >> parent table to fire for an insert on the parent table as it does. But >> I also want the trigger to fire when an update on the parent table is >> executed, and this does not happen. >> > > There is no update on any row in the parent table. The update is on a > row in a child table. > > regards, tom lane >