| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2012-03-05 16:03:35 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYKwsx-JgxYCmkLO9RaoEbc5pgyWbNrbz+Oi0fUJ4GHjA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Uh! Now that I read this I realize that what you're supposed to give to
> CHECK TRIGGER is the trigger name, not the function name! In that
> light, using CHECK FUNCTION for this doesn't make a lot of sense.
>
> Okay, CHECK TRIGGER it is.
I confess to some bafflement about why we need dedicated syntax for
this, or even any kind of core support at all. What would be wrong
with defining a function that takes regprocedure as an argument and
does whatever? Sure, it's nicer syntax, but we've repeatedly rejected
patches that only provided nicer syntax on the grounds that syntax is
not free, and therefore syntax alone is not a reason to change the
core grammar. What makes this case different?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-03-05 16:07:50 | Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER? |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-03-05 16:02:50 | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |