From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: make "opaque" obsolete |
Date: | 2002-08-21 01:43:48 |
Message-ID: | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOKEMMCDAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Trigger functions will now be expected to take no arguments and return
> either tuple (or trigger if we call it that) or opaque. It would also be
> sensible to allow VOID in the case of AFTER triggers, but I'm inclined not
> to do so: I think it's better that a trigger function be declared in a way
> that makes it clear it's supposed to be a trigger. If CREATE
> TRIGGER accepts
> functions returning void then I think you lose some useful error checking.
>
> Should we throw a NOTICE stating that opaque is deprecated if a trigger
> is declared with opaque? Or should we wait a release or two for that?
I think a NOTICE at creation time is fine.
> Comments?
Sounds really good.
Chris
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-08-21 01:49:57 | Re: @(#)Mordred Labs advisory 0x0003: Buffer overflow in PostgreSQL (fwd) |
Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-08-21 01:18:46 | Re: backpatch of datetime fixes |