| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(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: | 2017-06-07 22:21:39 |
| Message-ID: | CACjxUsMZVpETgUjHRcLdMGZsbntwZc9Wwo_MjAYf0S+SA4GhwQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> My assumption about how transition tables ought to behave here is
> based on the simple fact that we already fire both AFTER
> statement-level triggers, plus my sense of aesthetics, or bias. I
> admit that I might be missing the point, but if I am it would be
> useful to know how.
Well, either will work. My inclination is that a single statement
should cause one execution of the FOR EACH STATEMENT trigger, but if
a good case can be made that we should have a FOR EACH STATEMENT
trigger fire for each clause within a statement -- well, it won't be
a problem for matview maintenance. The biggest hurt there would be
to *my* sense of aesthetics. ;-)
--
Kevin Grittner
VMware vCenter Server
https://www.vmware.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2017-06-07 22:25:30 | Re: PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2017-06-07 22:13:48 | Re: PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table |