| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Listing triggers in partitions (was Re: Remove mention in docs that foreign keys on partitioned tables) |
| Date: | 2018-06-29 01:28:13 |
| Message-ID: | 68116cdb-8cde-31d5-5fff-181a5ae49495@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018/06/29 6:23, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 6/28/18 22:52, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Couldn't psql chase the pg_depend links to find inherited triggers?
>>
>> Yeah, I thought this would be exceedingly ugly, but apparently it's not
>> *that* bad -- see the attached patch, which relies on the fact that
>> triggers don't otherwise depend on other triggers. We don't use this
>> technique elsewhere in psql though.
>
> Yeah, relying on pg_depend to detect relationships between catalog
> objects is a bit evil. We do use this for detecting sequences linked to
> tables, which also has its share of problems. Ideally, there would be a
> column in pg_trigger, perhaps, that makes this link explicit. But we
> are looking here for a solution without catalog changes, I believe.
+1 if that gets the job done.
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-06-29 01:37:55 | Re: SCRAM with channel binding downgrade attack |
| Previous Message | Haribabu Kommi | 2018-06-29 01:13:24 | Re: Does logical replication supports cross platform servers? |