From: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: The suppress_redundant_updates_trigger() works incorrectly |
Date: | 2008-11-06 14:23:01 |
Message-ID: | 4912FDC5.60200@kaigai.gr.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> writes:
>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> Wouldn't this omit comparing the null bitmap?
>
>> Oops, I added the comparison of null bitmap here.
>
> That's really, really ugly code. Why would it be necessary anyway?
> Shouldn't the security tag be expected to match? I suppose that it
> should be possible to alter a security tag with UPDATE, and that means
> it cannot work the way OID does anyway. In a sane implementation the
> field would already be valid before the triggers fire.
OK, I'll put a code to preserve it somewhere prior to triggers fire.
# Maybe, ExecBRUpdateTriggers()
However, I wonder if the oid field should be also preserved at same
place, not inside a specific trigger function.
What is your opinion?
Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2008-11-06 14:30:07 | Re: [WIP] In-place upgrade |
Previous Message | Benedek László | 2008-11-06 14:08:14 | Re: pg_dump roles support [Review] |