Re: Trigger behaviour not as stated

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 03:57:07PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Uh, I don't think we want to highlight the statement vs row difference
> > here but the fact that statement triggers fire on the referenced object
> > and not on the effected rows.  I have attached an updated patch which I
> > think is an improvement
> 
>      statement-level triggers for its partitions or child tables.  In contrast,
> !    row-level triggers are fired on the rows in effected partitions or
> !    child tables, even if they are not referenced in the query.
> 
> I still think that that's not well written.  A large part of the confusion
> here is over what "referenced" means.  To my mind, child tables/partitions
> are referenced by an inherited query, just not explicitly.  So that's why
> I'd prefer wording like "directly named in the query" (or "explicitly
> named").  If you insist on using "referenced" you could write "explicitly
> referenced", but IMO that's longer and no clearer.
> 
> A lesser complaint is that this reads like the antecedent of "they" is the
> rows, not the tables containing them, making the meaning of "referenced"
> even less clear.
> 
> Maybe something like
> 
>     In contrast, row-level triggers are fired for individual row change
>     events, and the triggers that are fired for an event are those
>     attached to the specific table containing the changed row, even if
>     it is a partition or child table not directly named in the query.

Oh, I am sorry.  I was focused on the first part of the sentence and
didn't notice your change to the second part.  How is this attachment?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +