Re: Clarify how triggers relate to transactions

From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: him(at)nathanmlong(dot)com, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Clarify how triggers relate to transactions
Date: 2021-05-05 09:55:20
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 2021-04-28 at 13:24 +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-04-27 at 14:26 +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> > mentions the
> > word "transaction" only once, in reference specifically to constraint
> > triggers: "They can be fired either at the end of the statement causing the
> > triggering event, or at the end of the containing transaction; in the latter
> > case they are said to be deferred."
> >
> > If I understand correctly, it would be helpful to add this sentence or a
> > corrected version of it: "Triggers always execute in the same transaction as
> > the triggering event, and if a trigger fails, the transaction is rolled
> > back."
> Good idea in principle, but I'd put that information on

Here is a proposed patch for this.

Laurenz Albe

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Document-how-triggers-interact-with-transactions.patch text/x-patch 2.5 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Laurenz Albe 2021-05-05 10:03:08 Re: Update maintenance_work_mem/autovacuum_work_mem to reflect the 1GB limitation with VACUUM
Previous Message Federico Caselli 2021-05-05 07:53:41 RE: BUG #16991: regclass is not case sensitive causing "relation does not exist" error

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2021-05-05 09:55:32 Re: few ideas for pgbench
Previous Message Jakub Wartak 2021-05-05 08:16:32 RE: Use simplehash.h instead of dynahash in SMgr