| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, David Christensen <david(at)endpoint(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Triggers on VIEWs |
| Date: | 2010-10-08 17:44:44 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimuz3s-bJQDx8PsR0a5ePXwbO3cvdgSBZvUZXOg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I think the
> right thing here is to replace "before" with a three-valued enum,
> perhaps called "timing", so as to force people to take another look
> at any code that touches the field directly.
+1. That seems much nicer.
> Although we already have macros TRIGGER_FIRED_AFTER/TRIGGER_FIRED_BEFORE
> that seem to mask the details here, the changes you had to make in
> contrib illustrate that the macros' callers could still be embedding this
> basic mistake of testing "!before" when they mean "after" or vice versa.
> I wonder whether we should intentionally rename the macros to force
> people to take another look at their logic. Or is that going too far?
> Comments anyone?
I'm less sold on this one.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-08 17:47:36 | Re: GIN vs. Partial Indexes |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-08 17:39:50 | Re: standby registration (was: is sync rep stalled?) |