| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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 |