From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: UPDATE SET (a,b,c) = (SELECT ...) versus rules |
Date: | 2014-06-14 20:44:10 |
Message-ID: | 10919.1402778650@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-06-14 15:48:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, it wouldn't be "unsafe" (barring volatile functions in the UPDATE,
>> which are unsafe already). It might be slow, but that's probably better
>> than failing.
> I forgot the details, but IIRC it's possible to write a ON UPDATE ...
> DO INSTEAD rule that's safe wrt multiple evaluations today by calling a
> function passing in the old pkey and NEW. At least I believed so at some
> point in the past :P
Hm. But you might as well use a trigger, no? Is anyone likely to
actually be doing such a thing?
It's conceivable that we could optimize the special case of NEW.*,
especially if it appears in the rule query's targetlist. But it's
trouble I don't really care to undertake ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-06-14 20:51:06 | crash with assertions and WAL_DEBUG |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-06-14 19:52:30 | Re: UPDATE SET (a,b,c) = (SELECT ...) versus rules |