to exclude the table_b earlier in its
plan and to possibly fallback to a plan equivalent to the first one.
with a view on a single table (test_av), the index is used.
An oddity in the plan is the expected row count in "Append"(11) ...
( tested on postgres 14 )
Regards,
Marc Mami
s on that difference.
best regards,
Marc Mamin
From: Joe Conway [mailto:m...@joeconway.com]
>Sent: Donnerstag, 24. Juni 2021 14:47
>To: Marc Mamin ; pgsql-general
>
>Subject: Re: removing "serial" from table definitions.
>
>On 6/24/21 8:33 AM, Marc Mamin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is there a way to c
t;It's 'nextval('admin.db_jobs_history_id_seq'::regclass)' on source and
>'nextval('db_jobs_history_id_seq'::regclass)' on target.
I've probably found the origin of our problem:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/release-8-1.html
=> Add proper dependencies for arguments of sequence functions (Tom)
But I won't be able to check that in the next few days..
best regards,
marc Mamin
Marc Mamin writes:
> > Yes, I undersand that serial is just a hint at table creation time, but is
> > there a place in catalog where we can see if the table was created using
> > 'serial' ?
>
> No. Where the docs say "these are equivalent", they mea
uch a lock,
thanks,
Marc Mamin
here an example of a such a deployment/migration script, all of these scripts
are applied sequentially in separate transactions:
===
SET client_min_messages=error;
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION block_item_cancel()
RETURNS TRIGGER AS
$BOD
hment, that the lock exists without any other apparent
conflicting session.
>Do you need to drop/create the trigger or a CREATE OR REPLACE function
would suffice?
There are different use cases. Sometimes I only need to drop a trigger or
modify its definition (not the function)
&
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Achilleas Mantzios
>Sent: Freitag, 10. Dezember 2021 11:36
>To: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
>Subject: Re: What is the best way to redefine a trigger? (lock issue)
>
>On 10/12/21 12:2
