Re: Remembering bug #6123
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2012-01-12T16:30:35Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes: > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Also, what's the point of testing update_ctid? I don't see that >> it matters whether the outdate was a delete or an update. > The update_ctid code was a carry-over from my old, slightly > different approach, which I failed to change as I should have. I'll > fix that along with the other. Actually, on reflection there might be a reason for checking update_ctid, with a view to allowing "harmless" cases. I see these cases: * UPDATE finds a trigger already updated the row: must throw error since we can't apply the update. * UPDATE finds a trigger already deleted the row: arguably, we could let the deletion stand and ignore the update action. * DELETE finds a trigger already updated the row: must throw error since we can't apply the delete. * DELETE finds a trigger already deleted the row: arguably, there's no reason to complain. Don't know if that was your reasoning as well. But if it is, then again the comment needs to cover that. regards, tom lane