From: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Triggers on columns |
Date: | 2009-10-01 00:25:58 |
Message-ID: | 20091001092033.9C15.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> What is the purpose of the new pg_get_triggerdef() variant? OK, the
> parameter name "pretty_bool" gives a hint, but what does this have to do
> with column triggers? Maybe you could try to explain this in more
> detail. Ideally split the patch into two: one that deals with
> pg_get_triggerdef(), and one that deals with column triggers.
It's for pg_dump. We can avoid duplicated codes if we use
pg_get_triggerdef() in pg_dump. So, I think column trigger and
the dump function for column trigger should be applied at once.
> If you want a "pretty" option on pg_get_triggerdef(), you could nowadays
> also implement that via a parameter default value instead of a second
> function.
OK, I'll rewrite it to use default parameter.
Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2009-10-01 00:43:14 | Re: CREATE LIKE INCLUDING COMMENTS and STORAGES |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-10-01 00:16:13 | Re: numeric_to_number() function skipping some digits |