Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Bug in triggers

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Oleg Serov <serovov(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bug in triggers
Date: 2010-03-09 14:32:19
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-bugs
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> It's arguably a bug, but since we lack consensus on whether NULL and
>>> ROW(NULL,NULL,...) are the same thing, it's difficult to make a
>>> bulletproof case either way.
>> Have we or can we somehow document why this happens?
> The reason it happens is that the assignment target is a "row" variable,
> meaning that it doesn't have concrete existence as a tuple but is just
> an alias for a list of scalar variables.  So there is no way for it to
> represent an atomic NULL; setting each of the individual scalars to NULL
> is possible but the result acts more like ROW(NULL,NULL,...).
> I'm not sure about documenting that.  It seems like an implementation
> detail.  If we had consensus that the two cases either should or should
> not be distinguishable, we could work towards making that happen; but
> lacking such consensus I'm hesitant to touch it at all.

What seems odd to me is that NEW is apparently some other kind of
thing that is not the same kind of thing as the row variable.


In response to


pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-03-09 15:25:53
Subject: Re: Bug in triggers
Previous:From: Andrea SuisaniDate: 2010-03-09 12:28:05
Subject: duplicate key violates unique contraint on pg_type_typname_nsp_index

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group