On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Thomas Munro wrote: > >> Recall that transition tables can be specified for statement-level >> triggers AND row-level triggers. If you specify them for row-level >> triggers, then they can see all rows changed so far each time they >> fire. > > Uhmm ... why do we do this? It seems like a great way to cause much > confusion. Shouldn't we see the transition table containing the whole > set for statement-level triggers only, and give row-level triggers just > the individual affected row each time?
I assumed that had come from the standard. I don't have a published standard, but I have just taken a quick look at one of the publicly available drafts dated 2006. I think its model is that the transition tables are always conceptually there, and NEW and OLD are just range variables over those tables. That may explain why transition tables are mentioned in the context of row-level triggers, and it may be that the spec's authors never intended row-level triggers to be able to see the (partial) transition table other than through the range variables that access exactly one row, but I don't see any wording that explicitly says so in the spec. Do you? Thoughts, Kevin? After thinking about this some more, it's not only the conversion to some arbitrary parent tuple type that would be surprising to a user of inheritance + triggers + transition tables, it's the fact that a row-level trigger on a given child table will also see tuples collected from other tables in the hierarchy. I think I didn't quite get that right in -v2: it should probably build TriggerTransitionFilter from union of all child tables' transition table flags, not just the named table, so that if any child table has a row trigger we start collecting transition tuples from all others for it to see... That sounds pretty crazy to me. So, assuming we want to proceed with this plan of collecting transition tuples from children, I see approximately 3 choices: 1. Reject transition tables on row-level triggers. 2. Reject transition tables on row-level triggers on tables that inherit from other tables. 3. Continue to allow transition tables on row-level triggers, but document that they must be prepared to see transition tuples as they would when querying arbitrary parent tables, and see tuples from other tables in the hierarchy (!) Another possibility which I haven't seriously considered is per-table transition tables so you'd collect each child's tuples separately. I take Alvaro's comment as a vote for 1. I vote for 1 too. -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers