From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(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: | 2017-05-17 09:45:07 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KUcuQdxfQj=rmSHzVMP6WFg6sjVPtDJrha=ySLWVKZAw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Option 3
>> --------
>>
>> BR, AR delete triggers on source partition
>> BR, AR insert triggers on destination partition.
>>
>> Rationale :
>> Since the update is converted to delete+insert, just skip the update
>> triggers completely.
>
> +1 to option3
>
..
> Earlier I thought that option1 is better but later I think that this
> can complicate the situation as we are firing first BR update then BR
> delete and can change the row multiple time and defining such
> behaviour can be complicated.
>
If we have to go by this theory, then the option you have preferred
will still execute BR triggers for both delete and insert, so input
row can still be changed twice.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-05-17 10:29:16 | Re: UPDATE of partition key |
Previous Message | Jeevan Ladhe | 2017-05-17 09:38:26 | fix hard-coded index in make_partition_op_expr |