From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump data structures for triggers |
Date: | 2016-02-04 15:13:41 |
Message-ID: | 14939.1454598821@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> On 02/04/2016 01:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm looking into fixing the problem reported here:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1445A624-D09F-4B51-9C41-46BA1E2D6862@neveragain.de
>> namely that if we split a view into a table + rule (because of circular
>> dependencies), parallel pg_restore fails to ensure that it creates any
>> triggers for the view only after creating the rule. If it tries to
>> create the triggers first, the backend may barf because they're the wrong
>> type of triggers for a plain table.
> No objections to this, but my "better idea" is simply to allow INSTEAD
> OF triggers on tables like discussed last year.
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/14c6fe168a9-1012-10e1b@webprd-a87.mail.aol.com
That sounds like a new feature, and not something we'd want to backpatch.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-02-04 15:33:27 | Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc. |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-02-04 15:07:36 | Re: [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index. |