On 17 May 2017 at 17:29, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Option 3 >> > -------- >> > >> > BR, AR delete triggers on source partition >> > BR, AR insert triggers on destination partition. >> > >> > Rationale : >> > Since the update is converted to delete+insert, just skip the update >> > triggers completely. >> >> +1 to option3 >> Generally, BR triggers are used for updating the ROW value and AR >> triggers to VALIDATE the row or to modify some other tables. So it >> seems that we can fire the triggers what is actual operation is >> happening at the partition level. >> >> For source partition, it's only the delete operation (no update >> happened) so we fire delete triggers and for the destination only >> insert operations so fire only inserts triggers. That will keep the >> things simple. And, it will also be in sync with the actual partition >> level delete/insert operations. >> >> We may argue that user might have declared only update triggers and as >> he has executed the update operation he may expect those triggers to >> get fired. But, I think this behaviour can be documented with the >> proper logic that if the user is updating the partition key then he >> must be ready with the Delete/Insert triggers also, he can not rely >> only upon update level triggers. >> > > Right, that is even my concern. That user might had declared only update > triggers and when user executing UPDATE its expect it to get call - but > with option 3 its not happening.
Yes that's the issue with option 3. A user wants to make sure update triggers run, and here we are skipping the BEFORE update triggers. And user might even modify rows. Now regarding the AR update triggers .... The user might be more concerned with the non-partition-key columns, and the UPDATE of partition key typically would update only the partition key and not the other column. So for typical case, it makes sense to skip the UPDATE AR trigger. But if the UPDATE contains both partition key as well as other column updates, it makes sense to fire AR UPDATE trigger. One thing we can do is restrict an UPDATE to have both partition key and non-partition key column updates. So this way we can always skip the AR update triggers for row-movement updates, unless may be fire AR UPDATE triggers *only* if they are created using "BEFORE UPDATE OF <column_name>" and the column is the partition key. Between skipping delete-insert triggers versus skipping update triggers, I would go for skipping delete-insert triggers. I think we cannot skip BR update triggers because that would be a correctness issue. >From user-perspective, I think the user would like to install a trigger that would fire if any of the child tables get modified. But because there is no provision to install a common trigger, the user has to install the same trigger on every child table. In that sense, it might not matter whether we fire AR UPDATE trigger on old partition or new partition. > > In term of consistency option 1 looks better. Its doing the same what > its been implemented for the UPSERT - so that user might be already > aware of trigger behaviour. Plus if we document the behaviour then it > sounds correct - > > - Original command was UPDATE so BR update > - Later found that its ROW movement - so BR delete followed by AR delete > - Then Insert in new partition - so BR INSERT followed by AR Insert. > > But again I am not quite sure how good it will be to compare the partition > behaviour with the UPSERT. > > > >> >> Earlier I thought that option1 is better but later I think that this >> can complicate the situation as we are firing first BR update then BR >> delete and can change the row multiple time and defining such >> behaviour can be complicated. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Dilip Kumar >> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com >> >> >> -- >> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) >> To make changes to your subscription: >> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > > > > > -- > Rushabh Lathia -- Thanks, -Amit Khandekar EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers