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 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2012-01-13 21:50:32 | 9.3 feature proposal: vacuumdb -j # |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-13 21:41:37 | Re: Remembering bug #6123 |