On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Jaime Casanova <ja...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think the problem is that the UPDATE or DELETE can only fire once a >> matching row has been identified, so that OLD can be filled in >> appropriately. But in this case, the matching row gets found not in >> the parent table, but in one of its child tables. So any triggers on >> the child table would fire, but triggers on the parent table will not. > > ah! and of course that makes a lot of sense... > how embarrasing! :(
If it's any consolation, when I initially looked at your example, I couldn't see what was wrong with it, either. After I ran it I figured it out. :-) -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
