| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: minimal update |
| Date: | 2008-10-22 19:27:02 |
| Message-ID: | 48FF7E86.4050404@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 14:43 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
>
>> There seems to be a preponderance of opinion for doing this as a
>> builtin. Here is a patch that does it that way, along with docs and
>> regression test.
>>
>
> In your example you use an underscore as the first character. The way
> you have done this it will probably exclude any other before row
> triggers from firing, which may have altered the value of one or more
> columns. The more probable choice for me would be to have a trigger that
> came after all other before triggers, and so should have a different
> name. It's just an example, so your choice is fine, but I think you
> should bring out that point more clearly for the average developer.
>
Fair point. I'll add that to the docs.
> Can we call the function "minimal_update_trigger", rather than min_...
>
>
If that's the general consensus, sure. I have no strong opinion.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-10-22 19:38:39 | Re: Deriving Recovery Snapshots |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-22 19:24:35 | Re: minimal update |