| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Emmanuel Cecchet <manu(at)asterdata(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Emmanuel Cecchet <Emmanuel(dot)Cecchet(at)asterdata(dot)com>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Partitioning option for COPY |
| Date: | 2009-11-25 16:30:47 |
| Message-ID: | 19645.1259166647@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
It seems like the easiest way to resolve this without weird corner
cases is to say that we fire triggers belonging to the parent table.
The individual partition child tables either shouldn't have triggers
at all, or we should restrict the cases in which those are considered
applicable.
As an example, what are you going to do with statement-level triggers?
Fire them for *every* child whether it receives a row or not? Doesn't
seem like the right thing.
Again, this solution presupposes an explicit concept of partitioned
tables within the system...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2009-11-25 16:35:31 | ALTER TABLE, find_composite_type_dependencies and locking |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-25 16:25:43 | Re: Hot Standby and cancelling idle queries |