Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER?

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER?
Date: 2012-03-06 09:33:54
Message-ID: CAFj8pRBHN1ZUFu8ON_yepvuf1TtQDBFAv-ovkOYfYQ+jNChp1A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello

>
> When I try to look on some multicheck form:
>
> a) CHECK FUNCTION ALL ON table_name
> b) CHECK TRIGGER ALL ON table_name
>
> then more natural form is @b (for me). Personally, I can live with
> one, both or second form, although I prefer CHECK TRIGGER.
>

I though some time more.

if somebody would to check all custom function, then he can write

CHECK FUNCTION ALL

what about triggers?

CHECK TRIGGER ALL

but if we don't implement CHECK TRIGGER, then this statement will look like

CHECK FUNCTION ALL ON ALL ???

and this is unclean - probably it doesn't mean - check trigger
function with any table. So this is other argument for CREATE TRIGGER.

Nice a day

Pavel

> notes?
>
> Regards
>
> Pavel
>
>
>> --
>> Robert Haas
>> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2012-03-06 09:54:59 Re: RFC: Making TRUNCATE more "MVCC-safe"
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2012-03-06 08:44:38 Re: Checksums, state of play