| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Statement-level triggers and inheritance |
| Date: | 2009-01-19 22:55:55 |
| Message-ID: | 200901192255.n0JMttT21754@momjian.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > On Thursday 15 January 2009 02:08:42 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Added to TODO:
> >> Have statement-level triggers fire for all tables in an
> >> inheritance hierarchy
>
> > I don't think that was really the conclusion from the thread.
>
> > As far as I can interpret the opinions, statement level triggers should fire
> > on the parent table only, rather than on some child, as it currently does.
>
> I think the consensus was that each table should have its own statement
> triggers (if any) fire. Which is one possible reading of Bruce's TODO
> item, but it's surely not clearly worded.
Sorry I had that wording wrong; TODO updated to:
When statement-level triggers are defined on a parent table, have them
fire only on the parent table, and fire child table triggers only where
appropriate
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-01-20 02:13:48 | Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch |
| Previous Message | Brendan Jurd | 2009-01-19 22:26:27 | Re: Meridiem markers (was: [BUGS] Incorrect "invalid AM/PM string" error from to_timestamp) |