| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Triggers on columns |
| Date: | 2009-09-03 05:10:00 |
| Message-ID: | 8200.1251954600@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Sure, and I found there might be difference between "UPDATE" and
> "UPDATE OF {all-columns}" triggers. UPDATE trigger is always fired
> when a row is updated even if none of the columns are actually
> modified, but UPDATE OF {all-columns} trigger is fired only when
> at least one of the columns is modified.
I'm betraying the fact that I haven't read the patch, but ...
exactly how, and when, are you determining whether a column has
been "modified"? I can't count the number of times somebody
has proposed simplistic and incorrect solutions to that.
Usually they forget about BEFORE triggers changing the row.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Markus Wanner | 2009-09-03 05:33:39 | Re: combined indexes with Gist - planner issues? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-03 05:04:56 | Re: Triggers on columns |