\d with triggers: more than one row returned by a subquery used as an expression

From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: \d with triggers: more than one row returned by a subquery used as an expression
Date: 2021-12-17 15:43:56
Message-ID: 20211217154356.GJ17618@telsasoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 08:02:59PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 06:01:12PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2021-Jul-16, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > CREATE TABLE p(i int) PARTITION BY RANGE(i);
> > > CREATE TABLE p1 PARTITION OF p FOR VALUES FROM (1)TO(2);
> > > CREATE FUNCTION foo() returns trigger LANGUAGE plpgsql AS $$begin end$$;
> > > CREATE TRIGGER x AFTER DELETE ON p1 EXECUTE FUNCTION foo();
> > > CREATE TRIGGER x AFTER DELETE ON p EXECUTE FUNCTION foo();
> >
> > Hmm, interesting -- those statement triggers are not cloned, so what is
> > going on here is just that the psql query to show them is tripping on
> > its shoelaces ... I'll try to find a fix.
> >
> > I *think* the problem is that the query matches triggers by name and
> > parent/child relationship; we're missing to ignore triggers by tgtype.
> > It's not great design that tgtype is a bitmask of unrelated flags ...
>
> I see it's the subquery Amit wrote and proposed here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+HiwqEiMe0tCOoPOwjQrdH5fxnZccMR7oeW=f9FmgszJQbgFg@mail.gmail.com
>
> .. and I realize that I've accidentally succeeded in breaking what I first
> attempted to break 15 months ago:
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 02:57:40PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > I'm happy to see that this doesn't require a recursive cte, at least.
> > I was trying to think how to break it by returning multiple results or results
> > out of order, but I think that can't happen.
>
> If you assume that pg_partition_ancestors returns its results in order, I think
> you can fix it by adding LIMIT 1. Otherwise I think you need a recursive CTE,
> as I'd feared.
>
> Note also that I'd sent a patch to add newlines, to make psql -E look pretty.
> v6-0001-fixups-c33869cc3bfc42bce822251f2fa1a2a346f86cc5.patch

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2021-12-17 15:58:50 Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2021-12-17 14:47:05 Re: Addition of --no-sync to pg_upgrade for test speedup