On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 11:10:52AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It seems pretty clear to me that this is busted. > > I don't think you actually tested anything that is dependent on any > of my patches there. > > > Adding this as an open item. Kevin? > > It will take some time to establish what legacy behavior is and how > the new transition tables are impacted. My first reaction is that a > trigger on the parent should fire for any related action on a child > (unless maybe the trigger is defined with an ONLY keyword???) using > the TupleDesc of the parent. Note that the SQL spec mandates that > even in a AFTER EACH ROW trigger the transition tables must > represent all rows affected by the STATEMENT. I think that this > should be independent of triggers fired at the row level. I think > the rules should be similar for updateable views. > > This will take some time to investigate, discuss and produce a > patch. I think best case is Friday.
[Action required within three days. This is a generic notification.] The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item. Kevin, since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a v10 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on open item ownership and send a status update within three calendar days of this message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed well in advance of shipping v10. Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts toward speedy resolution. Thanks.  https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers