From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: DETACH PARTITION and FOR EACH ROW triggers on partitioned tables
In-reply-to: <20200408160239.GA13987@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20200408160239.GA13987@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Wed, 08 Apr 2020 12:02:39 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1011.1586364645.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 12:50:45 -0400
Message-ID: <1012.1586364645@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Hmm.  Let's agree to what behavior we want, and then we implement that.
> It seems to me there are two choices:

> 1. on detach, keep the trigger but make it independent of the trigger on
> parent.  (This requires that the trigger is made dependent on the
> trigger on parent, if the table is attached as partition again;
> otherwise you'd end up with multiple copies of the trigger if you
> detach/attach multiple times).

> 2. on detach, remove the trigger from the partition.

> I think (2) is easier to implement, but (1) is the more convenient
> behavior.

I think that #1 would soon lead to needing all the same infrastructure
as we have for inherited columns and constraints, ie triggers would need
equivalents of attislocal and attinhcount.  I don't really want to go
there, so I'd vote for #2.

			regards, tom lane