On 2012-12-06 18:42:22 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 6 December 2012 18:31, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2012-12-06 18:21:09 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > >> On 6 December 2012 00:46, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> > >> > wrote: > >> >> Yes, but it is also the trigger writers problem. > >> > > >> > Maybe to some degree. I don't think that a server crash or something > >> > like a block-read error is ever tolerable though, no matter how silly > >> > the user is with their event trigger logic. If we go down that road > >> > it will be impossible to know whether errors that are currently > >> > reliable indicators of software or hardware problems are in fact > >> > caused by event triggers. Of course, if an event trigger causes the > >> > system to error out in some softer way, that's perfectly fine... > >> > >> How are event triggers more dangerous than normal triggers/functions? > > > > Normal triggers aren't run when the catalog is in an in-between state > > because they aren't run while catalog modifications are taking place. > > "in-between state" means what? And what danger do you see?
For example during table rewrites we have a temporary pg_class entry thats a full copy of the table, with a separate oid, relfilenode and everything. That gets dropped rather unceremonially, without the usual safety checks. If the user did anything referencing that table we would possibly have a corrupt catalog or even a segfault at our hands. For normal triggers the code takes quite some care to avoid such dangers. > If its just "someone might write bad code" that horse has already > bolted - functions, triggers, executor hooks, operators, indexes etc Not sure what you mean by that. Those don't get called in situation where they don't have a reliable work-environment. > I don't see any difference between an event trigger and these statements... > > BEGIN; > ALTER TABLE x ...; > SELECT somefunction(); > ALTER TABLE y ...; > COMMIT; Event triggers get called *during* the ALTER TABLE. So if were not careful they see something thats not easy to handle. I am for example not sure what would happen if we had a "rewrite" event trigger which inserts a log entry into a logtable. Not a stupid idea, right? Now imagine we had a deferred unique key on that logtable and the logtable is the one that gets rewritten... Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers