Services
24×7×365 Technical Support
Migration to PostgreSQL
High Availability Deployment
Database Audit
Remote DBA for PostgreSQL
Products
Postgres Pro Enterprise
Postgres Pro Standard
Cloud Solutions
Postgres Extensions
Resources
Blog
Documentation
Webinars
Videos
Presentations
Community
Events
Training Courses
Books
Demo Database
Mailing List Archives
About
Leadership team
Partners
Customers
In the News
Press Releases
Press Info
Services
24×7×365 Technical Support
Migration to PostgreSQL
High Availability Deployment
Database Audit
Remote DBA for PostgreSQL
Products
Postgres Pro Enterprise
Postgres Pro Standard
Cloud Solutions
Postgres Extensions
Resources
Blog
Documentation
Webinars
Videos
Presentations
Community
Events
Training Courses
Books
Demo Database
Mailing List Archives
About
Leadership team
Partners
Customers
In the News
Press Releases
Press Info
Facebook
Downloads
Home
>
mailing lists
[HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From
Marko Tiikkaja
Subject
[HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table
Date
June 2, 2017
13:48:12
Msg-id
CAL9smLCDQ=2o024rBgtD4WihzX8B3C6u_oSQ2K3+R5grJrV0bg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
Raw
Responses
Re: [HACKERS] PG10 transition tables, wCTEs and multiple operations on the same table
List
pgsql-hackers
Tree view
Since the subject of transition tables came up, I thought I'd test how this case works:
=# create table qwr(a int);
CREATE TABLE
=# create function qq() returns trigger as $$ begin raise notice '%', (select count(*) from oo); return null; end $$ language plpgsql;
CREATE FUNCTION
=# create trigger xx after insert on qwr referencing new table as oo for each statement execute procedure qq();
CREATE TRIGGER
=# with t as (insert into qwr values (1)) insert into qwr values (2), (3);
NOTICE: 3
NOTICE: 3
INSERT 0 2
to me, this means that it doesn't work. Surely one of the trigger invocations should say 1, and the other 2. Or was this intentional?
.m
pgsql-hackers
by date:
Previous
From:
Rafia Sabih
Date:
02 June 2017, 13:42:22
Subject:
Re: [HACKERS] Default Partition for Range
Next
From:
Craig Ringer
Date:
02 June 2017, 13:50:15
Subject:
Re: [HACKERS] Do we need the gcc feature "__builtin_expect" topromote the branches prediction?
Есть вопросы? Напишите нам!
Соглашаюсь с условиями обработки персональных данных
I confirm that I have read and accepted PostgresPro’s
Privacy Policy
.
I agree to get Postgres Pro discount offers and other marketing communications.
✖
×
×
Everywhere
Documentation
Mailing list
List:
all lists
pgsql-general
pgsql-hackers
buildfarm-members
pgadmin-hackers
pgadmin-support
pgsql-admin
pgsql-advocacy
pgsql-announce
pgsql-benchmarks
pgsql-bugs
pgsql-chat
pgsql-cluster-hackers
pgsql-committers
pgsql-cygwin
pgsql-docs
pgsql-hackers-pitr
pgsql-hackers-win32
pgsql-interfaces
pgsql-jdbc
pgsql-jobs
pgsql-novice
pgsql-odbc
pgsql-patches
pgsql-performance
pgsql-php
pgsql-pkg-debian
pgsql-pkg-yum
pgsql-ports
pgsql-rrreviewers
pgsql-ru-general
pgsql-sql
pgsql-students
pgsql-testers
pgsql-translators
pgsql-www
psycopg
Period
anytime
within last day
within last week
within last month
within last 6 months
within last year
Sort by
date
reverse date
rank
Services
24×7×365 Technical Support
Migration to PostgreSQL
High Availability Deployment
Database Audit
Remote DBA for PostgreSQL
Products
Postgres Pro Enterprise
Postgres Pro Standard
Cloud Solutions
Postgres Extensions
Resources
Blog
Documentation
Webinars
Videos
Presentations
Community
Events
Training Courses
Books
Demo Database
Mailing List Archives
About
Leadership team
Partners
Customers
In the News
Press Releases
Press Info
By continuing to browse this website, you agree to the use of cookies. Go to
Privacy Policy
.
I accept cookies