UPDATE OF on REPLICA TRIGGERS
We tried a lot, maybe for some days, to have some triggers working properly on a replica server. So we read a discussion that is not possible to have UPDATE OF in a trigger which works only on REPLICA. Our tests was production using version 10 and replica using version 11. I thing it would be helpful if the docs had this explained. Or an exception would occur when we try to create a REPLICA TRIGGER with UPDATE OF. Document it with something like ... replace your "UPDATE OF col1, col2" when you create your trigger which works only on replica for "new.col1 is distinct of old.col1" inside your trigger function. CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION CalculateSomethingOnReplica() RETURNS TRIGGER AS $$ BEGIN IF tg_op = 'update' THEN IF new.col1 IS NOT DISTINCT FROM old.col1 THEN --DoTheCalc END IF; END IF; RETURN NULL; END; $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql; CREATE TRIGGER CalculateSomethingOnReplica AFTER UPDATE ON MyTable FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE PROCEDURE CalculateSomethingOnReplica(); ALTER TABLE MyTable ENABLE REPLICA TRIGGER CalculateSomethingOnReplica; -- Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-docs-f2165602.html
Re: Broken link in JSON Types documentation
On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 06:11:55PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > In PG v10 and up this link goes to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7159. > Evidently whoever updated it didn't bother to back-patch into old > branches. I don't think that really cool to have user-facing documentation which goes to the void on supported branches, especially if there is an adequate replacement. Tom, do you think that this is worth updating? -- Michael signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Broken link in JSON Types documentation
Michael Paquier writes: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 06:11:55PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> In PG v10 and up this link goes to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7159. >> Evidently whoever updated it didn't bother to back-patch into old >> branches. > I don't think that really cool to have user-facing documentation which > goes to the void on supported branches, especially if there is an > adequate replacement. Tom, do you think that this is worth updating? I didn't quite have the energy to do something about it yesterday, but if you do, feel free. (I'd suggest looking up the commit that fixed it, to see if it fixed anything else.) regards, tom lane
Re: Broken link in JSON Types documentation
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 09:50:34AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I didn't quite have the energy to do something about it yesterday, > but if you do, feel free. > > (I'd suggest looking up the commit that fixed it, to see if it fixed > anything else.) Sure, that was my plan. The change is from d542859, which did not go to 9.6 and older, and committed. There was one conflict for libpq which was simple enough to fix, and I have also double-checked the rest of the docs for rogue links to RFCs. -- Michael signature.asc Description: PGP signature
