Re: Making AFTER triggers act properly in PL functions

Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> Right, but if we search the entire trigger queue from the beginning
> looking for all triggers now immediate and fire them in the EndQuery of
> the set constraints statement contained in D, we'd potentially get an
> ordering like:

> Trigger A start
> Trigger D start
> Trigger B start
> Trigger B end
> Trigger C start
> Trigger C end
> Trigger D end
> Trigger A end

> rather than:

> Trigger A start
> Trigger D start
> Trigger C start
> Trigger C end
> Trigger D end
> Trigger A end
> Trigger B start
> Trigger B end

> where I'd gather the latter is the intended ordering.

I think it'd be very debatable which order is "intended". I don't feel
a strong need to promise one of these orders over the other.

It does occur to me though that there's another hazard here: refiring
trigger A which is already-in-progress. We'll need to add another flag
indicating that to the trigger queue entries ...

regards, tom lane