On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 01:10:08PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 07:39:34PM +0000, i...@thepathcentral.com wrote: >> > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: >> > >> > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/sql-createtrigger.html >> > Description: >> > >> > URL: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-createtrigger.html >> > >> > Statement: "In contrast, row-level triggers are fired for all affected >> > partitions or child tables." >> > >> > Row-level triggers are not fired on child tables where the trigger ON >> > BEFORE >> > UPDATE | DELETE is on the parent table. Only works on BEFORE INSERT. > > OK, I have some more details on this. First there is the Stackoverflow > report: > > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/47557665/postgresql-on-before-delete-trigger-not-firing-on-a-parent-table-in-an-inheritan > > The report confirms that row-level triggers are fired _only_ on affected > tables (meaning the table that had a row change), not on any table > mentioned _or_ affected. The current wording, added in this commit: > > commit 501ed02cf6f4f60c3357775eb07578aebc912d3a > Author: Andrew Gierth <rhodiumt...@postgresql.org> > Date: Wed Jun 28 18:55:03 2017 +0100 > > Fix transition tables for partition/inheritance. > > We disallow row-level triggers with transition tables on child > tables. > Transition tables for triggers on the parent table contain only > those > columns present in the parent. (We can't mix tuple formats in a > single transition table.) > > Patch by Thomas Munro > > Discussion: > https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BTgmoZzTBBAsEUh4MazAN7ga%3D8SsMC-Knp-6cetts9yNZUCcg%40mail.gmail.com > > should be improved. The attached patch updates the docs to say > statement-level triggers fire on the "referenced" table, while row-level > triggers fire only on the "affected" table, (vs. all affected tables) > even if they are not referenced in the query. I would backpatch this to > PG 10.
+1 I was trying to convey that, but it does seem a little terse and cryptic. Your addition of "referenced" and "only" make it clearer. -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com
