Re: Confusing Trigger Docs.

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: neil(at)fairwindsoft(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Confusing Trigger Docs.
Date: 2017-08-31 13:23:24
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-docs

Can someone help with this text? I think the author is right that it
needs correction or clarification.


On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 08:07:10PM +0000, neil(at)fairwindsoft(dot)com wrote:
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
> Page:
> Description:
> This sentence:
> &quot;If an INSERT contains an ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE clause, it is possible that
> the effects of all row-level BEFORE INSERT triggers and all row-level BEFORE
> UPDATE triggers can both be applied in a way that is apparent from the final
> state of the updated row, if an EXCLUDED column is referenced.&quot;
> is very hard to digest.
> Should &quot;is apparent&quot; really be &quot;is not apparent&quot;? If not, what does &quot;is
> apparent&quot; mean and why is this statement here?
> Then
> &quot;There need not be an EXCLUDED column reference for both sets of row-level
> BEFORE triggers to execute, though.&quot;
> Does this mean that both row level BEFORE INSERT and BEFORE UPDATE triggers
> are always executed when ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE clause is present? Or is
> there some circumstance where they are not?
> If so, does this also mean that if I have a single trigger defined as BEFORE
> UPDATE OR INSERT that this trigger will fire twice?
> --
> Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +

In response to

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2017-08-31 13:25:44 Re: Confusing Trigger Docs.
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2017-08-31 04:56:39 Re: Change wording for PG_MODULE_MAGIC inclusion