| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Release changes |
| Date: | 2003-08-05 18:05:30 |
| Message-ID: | 3F2FF1EA.7000708@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andreas Pflug wrote:
> But PostgreSQL may be better than Oracle, don't you think? In the named
> document,
<snip>
> MSSQL2000 still doesn't have row level triggers, and I doubt that 2003 has.
>
Right, so as you've pointed out, Postgres trigger implementation is at
least in some ways more flexible than Oracle, and offers row level
triggers which MSSQL doesn't even have.
All I said was that you're being too harsh by suggesting that statement
level triggers don't even deserve mention. You are assuming that
everyone migrating to Postgres will "miss" the MSSQL feature when lots
of people (in fact, the majority) don't even use MSSQL.
I agree that having the equiv. of MSSQL's "inserted" and "deleted"
pseudo tables, would be nice, but I wouldn't allow lack thereof to
denigrate a useful new feature.
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Pflug | 2003-08-05 18:17:43 | TODO: trigger features |
| Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2003-08-05 17:57:39 | Re: Release changes |