| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: enable/disable broken for statement triggers on partitioned tables |
| Date: | 2022-07-29 18:44:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20220729184452.2i4xcru3lzey76m6@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2022-May-24, Amit Langote wrote:
> So, I think we should do something like the attached. A lot of
> boilerplate is needed given that the various enable/disable trigger
> variants are represented as separate sub-commands (AlterTableCmd
> subtypes), which can perhaps be avoided by inventing a
> EnableDisableTrigStmt sub-command node that stores (only?) the recurse
> flag.
Yeah, I don't know about adding tons of values to that enum just so that
we can use that to hide a boolean inside. Why not add a boolean to the
containing struct? Something like the attached.
We can later use the same thing to undo what happens in in AddColumn,
DropColumn, etc. It all looks pretty strange and confusing to me.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Investigación es lo que hago cuando no sé lo que estoy haciendo"
(Wernher von Braun)
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| triggers-recurse.patch | text/x-diff | 10.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2022-07-29 18:47:59 | Re: Documentation about PL transforms |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-07-29 18:41:29 | Re: making relfilenodes 56 bits |