| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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 14:07:44 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYki-EuLfO7SFiTW9oygHouZU2+0acZWHhSSb+inYtvfQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-06-05 14:15:08 | Re: PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-06-05 13:56:33 | Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: OK, so culicidae is *still* broken) |