Re: Statement-level Triggers For Uniqueness Checks

From: Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Statement-level Triggers For Uniqueness Checks
Date: 2019-01-08 22:26:09
Message-ID: CADkLM=fskf3o2HuYYKOkyebvbqrz+BbxHH1JLq7yac1T2xOKAA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 7:49 AM Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 25/12/2018 00:56, Corey Huinker wrote:
> > The regression diff (attached) seems to imply that the triggers simply
> > are not firing, though.
>
> The reason for this was explained by Dean. If you take out the check
> that he mentioned, then your trigger fires but crashes. In your changed
> unique_key_recheck(), "slot" is not initialized before use (or ever).

Thanks. I'll be revisiting this shortly. Dean's information made me
think the potential for a gain is smaller than initially imagined.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-01-08 22:31:23 Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables)
Previous Message John Naylor 2019-01-08 22:16:21 Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables)