Re: enable/disable broken for statement triggers on partitioned tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 20:25:51
Message-ID: 4160440.1659126351@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> 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.

I do not think it's a great idea to have ALTER TABLE scribbling on
the source parsetree. That tree could be in plancache and subject
to reuse later.

Mind you, I don't say that we're perfectly clean about this elsewhere.
But there is a pretty hard expectation that the executor doesn't
modify plan trees, and I think the same rule should apply to utility
statements.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2022-07-29 20:29:28 Re: making relfilenodes 56 bits
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-07-29 20:08:21 Re: making relfilenodes 56 bits