| From: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: triggers and inheritance tree |
| Date: | 2012-03-28 14:46:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAJKUy5ho-jwTXLQxsehFsCZs-kvVCm_v7ajHrSwbEqTRUE9Z=g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I think the problem is that the UPDATE or DELETE can only fire once a
> matching row has been identified, so that OLD can be filled in
> appropriately. But in this case, the matching row gets found not in
> the parent table, but in one of its child tables. So any triggers on
> the child table would fire, but triggers on the parent table will not.
>
ah! and of course that makes a lot of sense...
how embarrasing! :(
--
Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com
Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte 24x7 y capacitación
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-03-28 14:57:51 | Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation) |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-03-28 14:45:25 | Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation) |