Message-ID: <559142D5.2080608@aklaver.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 06:06:29 -0700
From: Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gmb <gmbouwer@gmail.com>, pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Disable Trigger for session only
References: <1435563798887-5855658.post@n5.nabble.com>
In-Reply-To: <1435563798887-5855658.post@n5.nabble.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-sql-owner@postgresql.org

On 06/29/2015 12:43 AM, gmb wrote:
> Hi
>
> I' pretty sure I know the answer, but trying my luck.
>
> I'm in a position where the most logical/effective way of doing an update
> (data fix) is this:
> ALTER TABLE temp DISABLE TRIGGER trigname;
> UPDATE temp ..... DO SOME STUFF....
> ALTER TABLE temp DISABLE TRIGGER trigname;
>
> Some notes:
> It cannot be guaranteed that the above happens as a single transaction.
> It is possible that this occurs at the same time as other session posting
> inserts/updates to table TEMP.

It can if wrapped in BEGIN/COMMIT or is there reason that is not being done?

>
> I'm seeing data which suggests that trigger trigname did not occur when in
> fact it should have ( i.e. the above update procedure is not relevant ).
> Does this make sense taking into account that multiple sessions posts to the
> table at once ?

Not without knowing what the trigger procedure does?

>
> I'm aware that session_replication_role can be used as alternative to
> disable triggers, and have been using it in other scenarios. But in this
> case i'd like to choose which trigger to disable (I want other triggers on
> table temp to still occur).
>
> Is there any other alternatives to this ?
>
> Will appreciate any input
>
>


-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com


-- 
Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql