From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table |
Date: | 2017-06-05 14:15:08 |
Message-ID: | 476.1496672108@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> In the meantime, it seems like you agree that rejecting wCTEs that
>> affect tables with triggers with transition tables is the best
>> response to this bug report? Do you think that parse analysis is the
>> right time to do the check? Here's a first attempt at that.
FWIW, parse analysis is surely NOT the time for such a check. Triggers
might get added to a table between analysis and execution. I think you
might have to do it during executor startup.
> I'm starting to like the approach of reverting the entire transition
> tables patch. Failing to consider the possibility of a plan with
> multiple ModifyTable nodes seems like a pretty fundamental design
> mistake, and I'm not eager either to ship this with that broken or try
> to fix it at this stage of the release cycle.
Postponing the feature to v11 might be a viable solution. We don't
have any other major work that depends on it do we?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-06-05 14:19:02 | Re: PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-06-05 14:07:44 | Re: PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table |