On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 07:03:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-Apr-20, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 06:35:44PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>
> > > Also, how about, for consistency, making the parent table labeling of
> > > the trigger look similar to that for the
On 2020-Apr-20, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 06:35:44PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > Also, how about, for consistency, making the parent table labeling of
> > the trigger look similar to that for the foreign constraint, so
> > Triggers:
> > TABLE "f1" TRIGGER "trig"
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:20:38PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml
> b/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml
> index 7595e609b5..233905552c 100644
> --- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml
> +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml
> @@ -941,13 +943,14 @@
I think I also owe the attached doc updates.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml
index 7595e609b5..233905552c 100644
On 2020-Apr-20, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> + while (HeapTupleIsValid(trigtup = systable_getnext(scan)))
> + {
> + Form_pg_trigger pg_trigger = (Form_pg_trigger)
> GETSTRUCT(trigtup);
> + ObjectAddress trig;
> +
> + /* Ignore triggers that weren't cloned
> + deleteDependencyRecordsFor(TriggerRelationId,
> + pg_trigger->oid,
> + false);
> + deleteDependencyRecordsFor(RelationRelationId,
> +
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 06:35:44PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 5:49 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 03:13:29PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > What happens if you detach the parent? I mean, should the trigger
> > > removal recurse to children?
> >
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 5:49 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 03:13:29PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2020-Apr-18, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > I haven't heard a compelling argument for or against either way.
> > >
> > > Maybe the worst behavior might be if, during ATTACH,
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 03:13:29PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-Apr-18, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > I haven't heard a compelling argument for or against either way.
> >
> > Maybe the worst behavior might be if, during ATTACH, we searched for a
> > matching
> > trigger, and "merged" it
On 2020-Apr-19, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> It's probably rare that we'd be inserting into a table old enough to be
> detached, and normally that would be ok, but if a trigger were missing, it
> would misbehave. In our use-case, we're creating trigger on the parent as a
> convenient way to maintain
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 11:44:33AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 12:02:39PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2020-Apr-08, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >
> > > This seems to be a bug in master, v12, and (probably) v11, where "FOR
> > > EACH FOR"
> > > was first allowed on
On 2020-Apr-18, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> I haven't heard a compelling argument for or against either way.
>
> Maybe the worst behavior might be if, during ATTACH, we searched for a
> matching
> trigger, and "merged" it (marked it inherited) if it matched. That could be
> bad if someone *wanted*
v3 fixes a brown-paper-bag logic error.
--
Justin
>From b5de1fc71f805bb8c7ec7e77bfce9a604ccd4bc8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Justin Pryzby
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 22:43:26 -0500
Subject: [PATCH v3] fix detaching tables with inherited row triggers
The old behavior is buggy, and the intended
On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 09:46:38AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Amit Langote writes:
> > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 3:09 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> My point is that so long as you only allow the case of exactly one parent,
> >> you can just delete the child trigger, because it must belong to that
> >>
Amit Langote writes:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 3:09 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> My point is that so long as you only allow the case of exactly one parent,
>> you can just delete the child trigger, because it must belong to that
>> parent. As soon as there's any flexibility, you are going to end up
>>
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 3:09 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > On 2020-Apr-08, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think that #1 would soon lead to needing all the same infrastructure
> >> as we have for inherited columns and constraints, ie triggers would need
> >> equivalents of attislocal and
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2020-Apr-08, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think that #1 would soon lead to needing all the same infrastructure
>> as we have for inherited columns and constraints, ie triggers would need
>> equivalents of attislocal and attinhcount. I don't really want to go
>> there, so I'd
On 2020-Apr-08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Hmm. Let's agree to what behavior we want, and then we implement that.
> > It seems to me there are two choices:
>
> > 1. on detach, keep the trigger but make it independent of the trigger on
> > parent. (This requires that the
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Hmm. Let's agree to what behavior we want, and then we implement that.
> It seems to me there are two choices:
> 1. on detach, keep the trigger but make it independent of the trigger on
> parent. (This requires that the trigger is made dependent on the
> trigger on
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 12:02:39PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-Apr-08, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> > This seems to be a bug in master, v12, and (probably) v11, where "FOR EACH
> > FOR"
> > was first allowed on partition tables (86f575948).
> >
> > I thought this would work like
On 2020-Apr-08, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> This seems to be a bug in master, v12, and (probably) v11, where "FOR EACH
> FOR"
> was first allowed on partition tables (86f575948).
>
> I thought this would work like partitioned indexes (8b08f7d48), where
> detaching
> a partition makes its index
This seems to be a bug in master, v12, and (probably) v11, where "FOR EACH FOR"
was first allowed on partition tables (86f575948).
I thought this would work like partitioned indexes (8b08f7d48), where detaching
a partition makes its index non-inherited, and attaching a partition marks a
22 matches
Mail list logo
