| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Remembering bug #6123 |
| Date: | 2012-01-12 16:18:29 |
| Message-ID: | 22190.1326385109@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> So, I guess my question is, if we add safeguards against these sorts of
> bugs for triggers, should we also add them to FOR UPDATE? Historically,
> we seem to have taken the stand that modifications of self-updated tuples
> should be ignored. If we're going to reverse that decision (which I think
> Kevin has argued for quite convincingly), it seems consistent to complain
> about all modifications to self-updated tuples, not only to those involving
> triggers.
I'm not very convinced, except for the specific case of updates caused
by cascaded triggers.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2012-01-12 16:21:16 | Re: JSON for PG 9.2 |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-01-12 16:16:39 | Re: Remembering bug #6123 |