| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Listing triggers in partitions (was Re: Remove mention in docs that foreign keys on partitioned tables) |
| Date: | 2018-06-28 21:23:11 |
| Message-ID: | a1e340b6-1bb1-b792-a607-e874045bfb6d@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/28/18 22:52, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Couldn't psql chase the pg_depend links to find inherited triggers?
>
> Yeah, I thought this would be exceedingly ugly, but apparently it's not
> *that* bad -- see the attached patch, which relies on the fact that
> triggers don't otherwise depend on other triggers. We don't use this
> technique elsewhere in psql though.
Yeah, relying on pg_depend to detect relationships between catalog
objects is a bit evil. We do use this for detecting sequences linked to
tables, which also has its share of problems. Ideally, there would be a
column in pg_trigger, perhaps, that makes this link explicit. But we
are looking here for a solution without catalog changes, I believe.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nikita Glukhov | 2018-06-28 22:45:30 | Re: SQL/JSON: documentation |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-06-28 21:19:17 | Re: partition tree inspection functions |