-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
However I'm suspicious if KEY_CHANGED check is necessary.
Removing KEY_CHANGED stuff seems to solve the TODO
FOREIGN KEY INSERT UPDATE/DELETE in transaction "change violation"
though it may introduce other bugs.
Here is another bug:
test= begin;
BEGIN
test= INSERT INTO primarytest2 VALUES (5,5);
INSERT 18757 1
test= UPDATE primarytest2 SET col2=1 WHERE col1 = 5 AND col2 = 5;
ERROR: deferredTriggerGetPreviousEvent: event for tuple (0,10) not
found
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Here is another bug:
test= begin;
BEGIN
test= INSERT INTO primarytest2 VALUES (5,5);
INSERT 18757 1
test= UPDATE primarytest2 SET col2=1 WHERE col1 = 5 AND col2 = 5;
ERROR: deferredTriggerGetPreviousEvent: event for tuple (0,10) not
found
Schema?
Jan
--
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Here is another bug:
test= begin;
BEGIN
test= INSERT INTO primarytest2 VALUES (5,5);
INSERT 18757 1
test= UPDATE primarytest2 SET col2=1 WHERE col1 = 5 AND col2 = 5;
ERROR: deferredTriggerGetPreviousEvent: event for tuple (0,10) not
found
Schema?
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Momjian
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Here is another bug:
ISTM commands/trigger.c is broken.
The behabior seems to be changed by recent changes made by Tom.
* Check if we're interested in this row at all
* -- *
"Hiroshi Inoue" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ISTM commands/trigger.c is broken.
The behabior seems to be changed by recent changes made by Tom.
Hm. I changed the code to not log an AFTER event unless there is
actually a trigger of the relevant type, thus suppressing what I
considered a very
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
"Hiroshi Inoue" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ISTM commands/trigger.c is broken.
The behabior seems to be changed by recent changes made by Tom.
Hm. I changed the code to not log an AFTER event unless there is
actually
I wrote:
Are there cases where we must log an event anyway, and if so what are
they? It didn't look to me like the deferred event executor would do
anything with a logged event that has no triggers ...
Oops, I missed the uses of deferredTriggerGetPreviousEvent(). Fixed
now.
"Hiroshi Inoue" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because I don't know details about trigger stuff, I may be
misunderstanding. As far as I see, KEY_CHANGED stuff
requires to log every event about logged tuples.
I just realized that myself. The code was still doing it the hard
way (eg, logging
hi, there!
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
This problem with foreign keys has been reported to me, and I have confirmed
the bug exists in current sources. The DELETE should succeed:
---
CREATE
Think I misinterpreted the SQL3 specs WR to this detail. The
checks must be made per statement, not at the transaction
level. I'll try to fix it, but we need to define what will
happen with referential actions in the case of conflicting
actions on the
Can someone tell me where we are on this?
This problem with foreign keys has been reported to me, and I have confirmed
the bug exists in current sources. The DELETE should succeed:
---
CREATE TABLE primarytest2 (
This is Jan's reply to the issue.
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
ERROR: triggered data change violation on relation "primarytest2"
We're getting this report about once every 48 hours, which would make it a
FAQ. (hint, hint)
First time I heard of it.
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
ERROR: triggered data change violation on relation "primarytest2"
We're getting this report about once every 48 hours, which would make it a
FAQ. (hint, hint)
First time I heard of it. Does anyone know more details?
Think I
Bruce Momjian writes:
ERROR: triggered data change violation on relation "primarytest2"
We're getting this report about once every 48 hours, which would make it a
FAQ. (hint, hint)
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://yi.org/peter-e/
Bruce Momjian writes:
ERROR: triggered data change violation on relation "primarytest2"
We're getting this report about once every 48 hours, which would make it a
FAQ. (hint, hint)
First time I heard of it. Does anyone know more details?
--
Bruce Momjian
16 matches
Mail list logo
