Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: WIP fix proposal for bug #6123

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Florian Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP fix proposal for bug #6123
Date: 2011-08-03 17:07:24
Message-ID: 4E3939FC020000250003FA1D@gw.wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> wrote:
 
> To me, it still seems conceptionally cleaner to just decree that a
> row must not be modified while BEFORE triggers are running,
> period.
> 
> This, BTW, also matches what Oracle does, only on a per-row
> instead of per-table basis. Oracle AFAIR simply forbids touching
> of the table a BEFORE trigger is attached to from within that
> trigger. (They even forbid SELECTS, which is presumably because
> they don't have an equivalent of our per-row command id, i.e.
> cannot ensure that such a SELECT sees the state the table was in
> at the beginning of the statement)
 
It appears this was in flight while I was composing my last post. 
This seems pretty strict, but given the trade-offs, perhaps it is
worth it.  I can live with either solution, myself.
 
-Kevin

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2011-08-03 17:12:38
Subject: Re: cataloguing NOT NULL constraints
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-08-03 17:07:22
Subject: Re: Transient plans versus the SPI API

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group