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

Re: Remembering bug #6123

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Remembering bug #6123
Date: 2012-01-13 21:44:51
Message-ID: 4F10517302000025000447C3@gw.wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
 
> What do you think of
> 
> ERROR: tuple to be updated was already modified by an operation
> triggered by the UPDATE command
> HINT: Consider using an AFTER trigger instead of a BEFORE trigger
> to propagate changes to other rows.
> 
> (s/update/delete/ for the DELETE case of course)
> 
> The phrase "triggered by" seems slippery enough to cover cases
> such as a volatile function executed by the UPDATE.  The HINT
> doesn't cover that case of course, but we have a ground rule that
> HINTs can be wrong.
 
Looks good to me.
 
-Kevin

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2012-01-13 21:50:32
Subject: 9.3 feature proposal: vacuumdb -j #
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-01-13 21:41:37
Subject: Re: Remembering bug #6123

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