On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2 June 2017 at 01:17, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>> Regarding the trigger issue, I can't claim to have a terribly strong >>>> opinion on this. I think that practically anything we do here might >>>> upset somebody, but probably any halfway-reasonable thing we choose to >>>> do will be OK for most people. However, there seems to be a >>>> discrepancy between the approach that got the most votes and the one >>>> that is implemented by the v8 patch, so that seems like something to >>>> fix. >>> >>> Yes, I have started working on updating the patch to use that approach >>> (BR and AR update triggers on source and destination partition >>> respectively, instead of delete+insert) The approach taken by the >>> patch (BR update + delete+insert triggers) didn't require any changes >>> in the way ExecDelete() and ExecInsert() were called. Now we would >>> require to skip the delete/insert triggers, so some flags need to be >>> passed to these functions, >>>
I thought you already need to pass an additional flag for special handling of ctid in Delete case. For Insert, a new flag needs to be passed and need to have a check for that in few places. > or else have stripped down versions of >>> ExecDelete() and ExecInsert() which don't do other things like >>> RETURNING handling and firing triggers. >> >> See, that strikes me as a pretty good argument for firing the >> DELETE+INSERT triggers... >> >> I'm not wedded to that approach, but "what makes the code simplest?" >> is not a bad tiebreak, other things being equal. > > Yes, that sounds good to me. > I am okay if we want to go ahead with firing BR UPDATE + DELETE + INSERT triggers for an Update statement (when row movement happens) on the argument of code simplicity, but it sounds slightly odd behavior. > But I think we want to wait for other's > opinion because it is quite understandable that two triggers firing on > the same partition sounds odd. > Yeah, but I think we have to rely on docs in this case as behavior is not intuitive. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
