Re: Why are triggers semi-deferred?

From: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why are triggers semi-deferred?
Date: 2003-05-05 15:35:56
Message-ID: 5.1.0.14.0.20030506013401.047fc048@mail.rhyme.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

At 08:20 AM 5/05/2003 -0700, Stephan Szabo wrote:
>it might be better to make times that the
>triggers can run be choosable (with the spec behavior becoming default
>eventually) because we've got backward compatibility issues and we've kind
>overloaded the trigger system to do the foreign keys which have their own
>timing issues.

I think you are right here too; we need some way to make the triggers
function according to the spec, as well as to preserve compatibility for
constraint settings -- at least constrint triggers should fire when the
constraints expect it, and normal triggers should fire when the spec says
they should fire.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.B.N. 75 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \
Fax: (+61) 03 5330 3172 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Philip Warner 2003-05-05 15:50:06 Re: pg_dump future problem.
Previous Message Philip Warner 2003-05-05 15:31:58 Re: Why are triggers semi-deferred?