| From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Lee Kindness <lkindness(at)csl(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Bulkloading using COPY - ignore duplicates? |
| Date: | 2001-10-01 21:56:01 |
| Message-ID: | 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E320167AF@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > But what about BEFORE insert/update triggers which could
> > insert records too?
>
> Well, what about them? It's already possible for a later
> BEFORE trigger to cause the actual insertion to be suppressed,
> so I don't see any difference from what we have now.
> If a BEFORE trigger takes actions on the assumption that the
> insert will happen, it's busted already.
This problem could be solved now by implementing *single* trigger.
In future, we could give users ability to specify trigger
execution order.
But with proposed feature ...
> Mind you, I'm not actually advocating that we do any of this ;-).
I understand -:)
> I was just sketching a possible implementation approach in
> case someone wants to try it.
And I'm just sketching possible problems -:)
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-10-01 21:57:02 | Re: cvs problem |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-10-01 21:41:39 | Re: cvs tip problems |