Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 1 August 2011 17:49, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Ummm ... I only read the data structure comments, not the code, but I
>> don't see where you store the second CTID for an update event?
> Ah yes, I forgot to mention that bit. I'm using
> &(tuple1.t_data->t_ctid) to get the second CTID from the old tuple. Is
> that safe?
Hmmmm ... not sure. It seems a bit scary, but on the other hand we
should be able to assume that the updating subtransaction hasn't been
rolled back (else surely we shouldn't be firing the trigger). So in
principle it seems like the t_ctid link can't have been replaced.
This will foreclose any ideas about collapsing t_ctid link chains,
if anyone had it in mind to do that.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-08-01 17:36:09|
|Subject: Re: Compressing the AFTER TRIGGER queue|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-08-01 17:23:49|
|Subject: Re: error: could not find pg_class tuple for index 2662 |