From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Triggers on columns |
Date: | 2009-09-07 07:53:57 |
Message-ID: | 1252310037.29289.12.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 11:20 +0900, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
> We are discussing how to determine modified columns
> (UPDATE-target vs. changes of actual values), but in the patch
> I used value-based checking. The reasons are:
If you implement a new feature using syntax from the standard, you have
to implement the semantics of the standard. If you don't like the
semantics of the standard, use a different syntax.
> 2. IMHO, almost users don't expect their triggers are not called
> if the actual values are not modified.
Well, as we saw upthread, there can be different valid opinions on this.
But consider the following:
- Statement triggers are called even if the table was not actually
changed in a semantically significant way.
- Row triggers are called even if the row was not actually changed in a
semantically significant way.
Therefore, it cannot be completely unexpected if column triggers are
called even if the column was not actually changed in a semantically
significant way.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2009-09-07 09:36:24 | Re: Rename StrNCpy to avoid conflictions on win32 |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-09-07 07:43:45 | Re: LATERAL |