From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(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 10:35:01 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-uec3vbjNhh8AsqPm_vUVkunym--w9Z46e7Wzx1_pp8mw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> 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.
Yeah, right as per my theory above Option3 have the same problem.
But after putting some more thought I realised that only for "Before
Update" or the "Before Insert" trigger row can be changed. Correct me
if I am assuming something wrong?
So now again option3 will make more sense.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeevan Ladhe | 2017-05-17 10:53:50 | remove unnecessary flag has_null from PartitionBoundInfoData |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-05-17 10:29:16 | Re: UPDATE of partition key |