| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Aliouii Ali <aliouii(dot)ali(at)aol(dot)fr>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Tables cannot have INSTEAD OF triggers |
| Date: | 2015-04-01 17:15:26 |
| Message-ID: | 2170.1427908526@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:
> On 2015-04-01 12:46:05 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> So, the idea is that INSTEAD OF would behave like BEFORE but the tuple
>> it returns wouldn't actually be inserted? That wasn't clear to me
>> from the OP, but I guess it would be a reasonable way to go.
> I'm not sure what the OP intended, but to me that's pretty much the only
> reasonable definition of INSTEAD OF for tables that I can think of.
If you have such a trigger, it's impossible to insert any rows, which
means the table doesn't need storage, which means it may as well be a
view, no? So this still seems to me like a wart not a useful feature.
I think it would create confusion because a table with such a trigger
would act so much unlike other tables.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-04-01 17:20:50 | Re: Tables cannot have INSTEAD OF triggers |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-04-01 17:07:04 | Re: Tables cannot have INSTEAD OF triggers |