| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: UPDATE of partition key |
| Date: | 2017-05-24 14:46:57 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JWOhDP3eKmXttJJ1pK3UYAqLxPFnctSvzZz1n_DNQzWA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> By now, majority of the opinions have shown that they do not favour
>> two triggers getting fired on a single update. Amit, do you consider
>> option 2 as a valid option ?
>>
>
> Sounds sensible to me.
>
>> That is, fire only UPDATE triggers. BR on
>> source partition, and AR on destination partition. Do you agree that
>> firing BR update trigger is essential since it can modify the row and
>> even prevent the update from happening ?
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
> Apart from above, there is one open issue [1]
>
Forget to mention the link, doing it now.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-05-24 14:52:37 | Re: [HACKERS] Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-05-24 14:44:58 | Re: UPDATE of partition key |