On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 06:06:47PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > They will fire if you have an INSTEAD OF row-level trigger; the existence > > of that trigger is what determines whether we implement DML on a view > > through the view's own triggers or through translation to an action on > > the underlying table. > > > > I do not think it'd be reasonable to throw an error for creation of > > a statement-level view trigger when there's no row-level trigger, > > because that just imposes a hard-to-deal-with DDL ordering dependency. > > > > You could make a case for having the updatable-view translation code > > print a WARNING if it notices that there are statement-level triggers > > that cannot be fired due to the translation. > > Oh, I see -- you can add all the AFTER ... FOR EACH STATEMENT > triggers you want for an updatable view and they will quietly sit > there without firing no matter how many statements perform the > supposedly triggering action, but as soon as you add a INSTEAD OF > ... FOR EACH ROW trigger they spring to life. On the face of it that > seems to me to violate the POLA, but I kinda see how it evolved. > > I need to look at this and the rather similar odd behavior under > inheritance. I hope to post something Friday.
This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
