| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Triggers on columns |
| Date: | 2009-09-03 13:51:30 |
| Message-ID: | 1251985890.4154.13.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 07:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sep 3, 2009, at 7:44 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> > The SQL standard specifies that a trigger is fired if the column is
> > mentioned in the UPDATE statement, independent of whether the value is
> > actually changed through the update.
>
> That is thorougly bizarre, IMO.
Well, if you find that bizarre, consider the existing behavior: Why
should an ON UPDATE row trigger fire when none of the values of the
row's columns actually change? I think if you read
TRIGGER ON UPDATE
as
TRIGER ON UPDATE OF <all columns>
then it makes some sense.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-09-03 14:08:56 | Re: Feature request: DEFAULT as input value of function argument |
| Previous Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2009-09-03 13:47:18 | Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5 |