On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Thomas Munro >> <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:10 PM, Thomas Munro >>> <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>>> 2. If you attach a row-level trigger with transition tables to any >>>> inheritance child, it will see transition tuples from all tables in >>>> the inheritance hierarchy at or below the directly named table that >>>> were modified by the same statement, sliced so that they appear as >>>> tuples from the directly named table. >>> >>> Of course that's a bit crazy, not only for trigger authors to >>> understand and deal with, but also for plan caching: it just doesn't >>> really make sense to have a database object, even an ephemeral one, >>> whose type changes depending on how the trigger was invoked, because >>> the plans stick around. >> >> The patch to add transition tables changed caching of a trigger >> function to key on the combination of the function and the target >> relation, rather than having one cache entry regardless of the >> target table. > > Right. That works as long as triggers always see tuples in the format > of the relation that they're attached to, and I think that's the only > sensible choice. The problem I was thinking about was this: We have > only one pair of tuplestores and in the current design it holds tuples > of a uniform format, yet it may (eventually) need to be scanned by a > statement trigger attached to a the named relation AND any number of > row triggers attached to children with potentially different formats. > That implies some extra conversions are required at scan time. I had > a more ambitious patch that would deal with sone of that by tracking > storage format and scan format separately (next time your row trigger > is invoked the scan format will be the same but the storage format may > be different depending on which relation you named in a query), but > I'm putting that to one side for this release. That was a bit of a > rabbit hole, and there are some tricky design questions about tuple > conversions (to behave like DB2 with subtables may even require > tuplestore with per-tuple type information) and also the subset of > rows that each row trigger should see (which may require extra tuple > origin metadata or separate tuplestores).
Yeah, I wish this had surfaced far earlier, but I missed it and none of the reviews prior to commit caught it, either. :-( It seems too big to squeeze into v10 now. I just want to have that general direction in mind and not paint ourselves into any corner that makes it hard to get there in the next release. > I'm about to post a much simpler patch that collects uniform tuples > from children, addressing the reported bug, and simply rejects > transition tables on row-triggers on tables that are in either kind of > inheritance hierarchy. More soon... I agree that we can safely go that far, but not farther. Thanks! -- Kevin Grittner VMware vCenter Server https://www.vmware.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers