From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: \d with triggers: more than one row returned by a subquery used as an expression |
Date: | 2022-01-17 22:02:00 |
Message-ID: | 152507.1642456920@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 09:43:56AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> I want to mention that the 2nd problem I mentioned here is still broken.
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210717010259.GU20208@telsasoft.com
>> It happens if non-inheritted triggers on child and parent have the same name.
> This is the fix I was proposing
> It depends on pg_partition_ancestors() to return its partitions in order:
> this partition => parent => ... => root.
I don't think that works at all. I might be willing to accept the
assumption about pg_partition_ancestors()'s behavior, but you're also
making an assumption about how the output of pg_partition_ancestors()
is joined to "pg_trigger AS u", and I really don't think that's safe.
ISTM the real problem is the assumption that only related triggers could
share a tgname, which evidently isn't true. I think this query needs to
actually match on tgparentid, rather than taking shortcuts. If we don't
want to use a recursive CTE, maybe we could define it as only looking up
to the immediate parent, rather than necessarily finding the root?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-01-17 22:13:17 | Re: Removing more vacuumlazy.c special cases, relfrozenxid optimizations |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-01-17 21:55:10 | Re: Add last commit LSN to pg_last_committed_xact() |