On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Tom Lane wrote: > This particular test involves a table with a foreign-key reference to > itself, ie, it's both PK and FK. What apparently is happening is that > the two RI triggers are now being fired in a different order than > before. While either of them would have detected an error, we now get > the other error first. > > Does this bother anyone? It seems to me that the old code essentially > had no guarantee at all about the order in which the triggers would > fire, and so it was pure luck that the regression test never showed > the other message.
That's probably a bad thing even if I doubt that it'd ever come up the other way barring changes to other regression tests in practice. Forcing an order probably helps with this case anyway. > With the modified code, because we load the triggers by scanning > an index on (tgrelid, tgname), it is actually true that triggers are > fired in name order. We've had requests in the past to provide a > well-defined firing order for triggers --- should we document this > behavior and support it, or should we pretend it ain't there? Didn't someone (Peter?) say that the mandated firing order was based on creation order/time in SQL99? ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
