Re: Partitioning option for COPY

Tom Lane wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?SmFuIFVyYmHFhHNraQ==?= <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org> writes:
>
>> that got broken by the WHEN triggers patch
>> (c6e0a36243a54eff79b47b3a0cb119fb67a55165), which changed the
>> TriggerEnabled function signature, the code currently does not compile.
>>
>
> [ squint... ] What is that patch doing touching the innards of
> trigger.c in the first place? I can't see any reason for trigger.c
> to be associated with partitioning.
>
The problem I had is that if I used the standard trigger mechanism for
after row inserts on a child table where the trigger is called
asynchronously, I had a relcache leak on the child table. I tried to ask
for help on that earlier on but it got lost with other discussions on
the patch. So I tried to call the after trigger synchronously on the
child table and it worked.
So the patch is just adding a synchronous call to after row insert
triggers that is called when the tuple is moved to a child table (also
allows to detect for triggers that are messing with the routing).

I would be happy to follow any recommendation for a more elegant
solution to the problem.

Emmanuel

--
Emmanuel Cecchet
Aster Data
Web: http://www.asterdata.com