On 12 May 2017 at 08:30, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On 11 May 2017 at 17:23, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On 4 March 2017 at 12:49, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> I think it does not make sense running after row triggers in case of >>>>>> row-movement. There is no update happened on that leaf partition. This >>>>>> reasoning can also apply to BR update triggers. But the reasons for >>>>>> having a BR trigger and AR triggers are quite different. Generally, a >>>>>> user needs to do some modifications to the row before getting the >>>>>> final NEW row into the database, and hence [s]he defines a BR trigger >>>>>> for that. And we can't just silently skip this step only because the >>>>>> final row went into some other partition; in fact the row-movement >>>>>> itself might depend on what the BR trigger did with the row. Whereas, >>>>>> AR triggers are typically written for doing some other operation once >>>>>> it is made sure the row is actually updated. In case of row-movement, >>>>>> it is not actually updated. >>>>> >>>>> How about running the BR update triggers for the old partition and the >>>>> AR update triggers for the new partition? It seems weird to run BR >>>>> update triggers but not AR update triggers. Another option would be >>>>> to run BR and AR delete triggers and then BR and AR insert triggers, >>>>> emphasizing the choice to treat this update as a delete + insert, but >>>>> (as Amit Kh. pointed out to me when we were in a room together this >>>>> week) that precludes using the BEFORE trigger to modify the row. >>>>> >>> >>> I also find the current behavior with respect to triggers quite odd. >>> The two points that appears odd are (a) Executing both before row >>> update and delete triggers on original partition sounds quite odd. >> Note that *before* trigger gets fired *before* the update happens. The >> actual update may not even happen, depending upon what the trigger >> does. And then in our case, the update does not happen; not just that, >> it is transformed into delete-insert. So then we should fire >> before-delete trigger. >> > > Sure, I am aware of that point, but it doesn't seem obvious that both > update and delete BR triggers get fired for original partition. As a > developer, it might be obvious to you that as you have used delete and > insert interface, it is okay that corresponding BR/AR triggers get > fired, however, it is not so obvious for others, rather it appears > quite odd.
I agree that it seems a bit odd that we are firing both update and delete triggers on the same partition. But if you look at the perspective that the update=>delete+insert is a user-aware operation, it does not seem that odd. > If we try to compare it with the non-partitioned update, > there also it is internally a delete and insert operation, but we > don't fire triggers for those. For a non-partitioned table, the delete+insert is internal, whereas for partitioned table, it is completely visible to the user. > >>> (b) It seems inconsistent to consider behavior for row and statement >>> triggers differently >> >> I am not sure whether we should compare row and statement triggers. >> Statement triggers are anyway fired only per-statement, depending upon >> whether it is update or insert or delete. It has nothing to do with >> how the rows are modified. >> > > Okay. The broader point I was trying to convey was that the way this > patch defines the behavior of triggers doesn't sound good to me. It > appears to me that in this thread multiple people have raised points > around trigger behavior and you should try to consider those. I understand that there is no single solution which will provide completely intuitive trigger behaviour. Skipping BR delete trigger should be fine. But then for consistency, we should skip BR insert trigger as well, the theory being that the delete+insert are not fired by the user so we should not fire them. But I feel both should be fired to avoid any consequences unexpected to the user who has installed those triggers. The only specific concern of yours is that of firing *both* update as well as insert triggers on the same table, right ? My explanation for this was : we have done this before for UPSERT, and we had documented the same. We can do it here also. > Apart from the options, Robert has suggested, another option could be that > we allow firing BR-AR update triggers for original partition and BR-AR > insert triggers for the new partition. In this case, one can argue > that we have not actually updated the row in the original partition, > so there is no need to fire AR update triggers, Yes that's what I think. If there is no update happened, then AR update trigger should not be executed. AR triggers are only for scenarios where it is guaranteed that the DML operation has happened when the trigger is being executed. > but I feel that is what we do for non-partitioned table update and it should > be okay here > as well. I don't think so. For e.g. if a BR trigger returns NULL, the update does not happen, and then the AR trigger does not fire as well. Do you see any other scenarios for non-partitioned tables, where AR triggers do fire when the update does not happen ? Overall, I am also open to skipping both insert+delete BR trigger, but I am trying to convince above that this might not be as odd as it sounds, especially if we document this clearly why we have done. -- Thanks, -Amit Khandekar EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
