Re: potential bug in trigger with boolean params

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreak(at)officenet(dot)no>
Subject: Re: potential bug in trigger with boolean params
Date: 2011-05-11 18:04:34
Message-ID: 2106.1305137074@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> Is there a special reason for not using the normal function calling
> mechanisms? It looks to me as it was just done to have an easy way to store it
> in pg_trigger.tgargs.

Well, this is all very historical, dating from Berkeley days AFAIK.
If we had it to do over, I bet we'd do it differently --- but the pain
of changing it seems to exceed any likely benefit.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-05-11 18:18:38 Re: pg_upgrade and PGPORT
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-05-11 18:00:07 Re: Standbys which don't synch to disk?