On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Amit Langote
<langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> On 2017/05/03 2:48, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:30 AM, Amit Langote
>> <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>>> You're right. I agree that whatever text we add here should be pointing
>>> out that statement-level triggers of affected child tables are not fired,
>>> when root parent is specified in the command.
>>>
>>> Since there was least some talk of changing that behavior for regular
>>> inheritance so that statement triggers of any affected children are fired
>>> [1], I thought we shouldn't say something general that applies to both
>>> inheritance and partitioning. But since nothing has happened in that
>>> regard, we might as well.
>>>
>>> How about the attached?
>>
>> Looks better, but I think we should say "statement" instead of
>> "operation" for consistency with the previous paragraph, and it
>> certainly shouldn't be capitalized.
>
> Agreed, done. Attached updated patch.
<para>
+ A statement that targets the root table in a inheritance or partitioning
+ hierarchy does not cause the statement-level triggers of affected child
+ tables to be fired; only the root table's statement-level triggers are
+ fired. However, row-level triggers of any affected child tables will be
+ fired.
+ </para>
+
+ <para>
Why talk specifically about the "root" table? Wouldn't we describe
the situation more generally if we said [a,the] "parent"?
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
