Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
>> As long as we're talking about hack-slash-and-burn on this data
>> structure ...
> Where the OtherInformation could be shared within the statement (for
> identical events)? I think it'd be problematic to try sharing between
> statements.
Yeah, I had come to the same conclusion after more thought. But we
could certainly aggregate all the similar events generated by a single
query into a common status structure.
> But, I'm sort of assuming the following are true:
> Once a group of items is marked to be run, all items will run even if set
> constraints ... deferred happens while the run occurs.
That's a good question. If the first trigger firing tries to set the
event deferred, what happens to the remaining triggers? The SQL spec
doesn't even touch this question, so I think we are at liberty to do
what we like. I don't see that it's unreasonable to continue to fire
events that were marked as firable when we reached the end of the
current statement.
> If an error occurs, either the entire set of event objects for the
> statement are going away because they're new, or if it was something run
> from set constraints we're going to want to rerun the entire set anyway.
Right, that was what I was thinking.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
