| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Remembering bug #6123 |
| Date: | 2012-01-13 21:41:37 |
| Message-ID: | 19171.1326490897@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> I'm also fine with generating an error for such dirty tricks, and I
> agree that if that's indeed possible we should make the message
> general enough to cover that case. Nothing comes to mind at the
> moment, but I'll think on it.
What do you think of
ERROR: tuple to be updated was already modified by an operation triggered by the UPDATE command
HINT: Consider using an AFTER trigger instead of a BEFORE trigger to propagate changes to other rows.
(s/update/delete/ for the DELETE case of course)
The phrase "triggered by" seems slippery enough to cover cases such as a
volatile function executed by the UPDATE. The HINT doesn't cover that
case of course, but we have a ground rule that HINTs can be wrong.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-01-13 21:44:51 | Re: Remembering bug #6123 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-13 21:29:11 | Re: Remembering bug #6123 |