Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2021 09:43:56 -0600
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
	Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Subject: \d with triggers: more than one row returned by a subquery used as
 an expression
Message-ID: <20211217154356.GJ17618@telsasoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20211217154356.GJ17618%40telsasoft.com>
Precedence: bulk

I want to mention that the 2nd problem I mentioned here is still broken.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210717010259.GU20208@telsasoft.com

It happens if non-inheritted triggers on child and parent have the same name.

On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 08:02:59PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 06:01:12PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2021-Jul-16, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > CREATE TABLE p(i int) PARTITION BY RANGE(i);
> > > CREATE TABLE p1 PARTITION OF p FOR VALUES FROM (1)TO(2);
> > > CREATE FUNCTION foo() returns trigger LANGUAGE plpgsql AS $$begin end$$;
> > > CREATE TRIGGER x AFTER DELETE ON p1 EXECUTE FUNCTION foo();
> > > CREATE TRIGGER x AFTER DELETE ON p EXECUTE FUNCTION foo();
> > 
> > Hmm, interesting -- those statement triggers are not cloned, so what is
> > going on here is just that the psql query to show them is tripping on
> > its shoelaces ... I'll try to find a fix.
> > 
> > I *think* the problem is that the query matches triggers by name and
> > parent/child relationship; we're missing to ignore triggers by tgtype.
> > It's not great design that tgtype is a bitmask of unrelated flags ...
> 
> I see it's the subquery Amit wrote and proposed here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+HiwqEiMe0tCOoPOwjQrdH5fxnZccMR7oeW=f9FmgszJQbgFg@mail.gmail.com
> 
> .. and I realize that I've accidentally succeeded in breaking what I first
> attempted to break 15 months ago:
> 
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 02:57:40PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > I'm happy to see that this doesn't require a recursive cte, at least.
> > I was trying to think how to break it by returning multiple results or results
> > out of order, but I think that can't happen.
> 
> If you assume that pg_partition_ancestors returns its results in order, I think
> you can fix it by adding LIMIT 1.  Otherwise I think you need a recursive CTE,
> as I'd feared.
> 
> Note also that I'd sent a patch to add newlines, to make psql -E look pretty.
> v6-0001-fixups-c33869cc3bfc42bce822251f2fa1a2a346f86cc5.patch