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
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 |