From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
        Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: \d with triggers: more than one row returned by a subquery used as an expression
In-reply-to: <20220118000824.GC14051@telsasoft.com>
References: <20211217154356.GJ17618@telsasoft.com> <20211222210308.GD17618@telsasoft.com> <152507.1642456920@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20220118000824.GC14051@telsasoft.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
	message dated "Mon, 17 Jan 2022 18:08:24 -0600"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <163709.1642464874.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 19:14:34 -0500
Message-ID: <163710.1642464874@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/163710.1642464874%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 05:02:00PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ISTM the real problem is the assumption that only related triggers could
>> share a tgname, which evidently isn't true.  I think this query needs to
>> actually match on tgparentid, rather than taking shortcuts.

> I don't think that should be needed - tgparentid should match
> pg_partition_ancestors().

Uh, what?  tgparentid is a trigger OID, not a relation OID.

> Is there any reason why WITH ORDINALITY can't work ?
> This is passing the smoke test.

How hard did you try to break it?  It still seems to me that
this can be fooled by an unrelated trigger with the same tgname.

			regards, tom lane