Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Don't we already do that when pruning HOT chains?
>> I thought that only happens after the transaction is committed, and
>> old enough, whereas the trigger code only needs to follow the chain in
>> the updating transaction.
> Hmm, true.
> I worry a bit that this might foreclose possible future optimization
> of the "self update" case, which is a known pain point. Am I wrong to
> worry?
I think it might be OK if you explicitly verify that xmin/cmin of the
linked-to tuple matches the (sub)transaction/command that queued the
trigger event. I don't recall whether the trigger code does that
already; I think there is some related test but it might not be that
strict.
There's also a definitional issue involved: if a transaction updates the
same tuple twice, in the presence of a deferred update trigger for the
table, is it supposed to (eventually) fire the trigger for both update
actions or only the last one? I have a feeling we might already be
locked into the second choice, but if not, this would probably force it.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
