| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Truncate Triggers |
| Date: | 2008-01-31 11:45:55 |
| Message-ID: | 1201779955.4453.259.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 10:22 +0000, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Decibel!" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
>
> > CLUSTER isn't DDL. Most forms of ALTER TABLE are. And CREATE blah, etc.
>
> Fwiw I would call CLUSTER DDL. Note that it does make a change that's visible
> in the table definition afterwards.
>
> There are plenty of DDL commands which modify data (CREATE INDEX, ATLER TABLE
> ALTER COLUMN TYPE). The defining characteristic of DDL is not that it doesn't
> modify the data but that it does modify the table definition.
>
> By that definition CLUSTER is DDL and TRUNCATE is DDL if you look at the
> implementation rather than the user-visible effects.
Surely the question is more simple: do we want triggers on it?
There's a clear case for TRUNCATE to have a triggers.
Is there a clear case for any other statements (however you categorise
them)? If so, lets hear it, please.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-01-31 12:31:45 | Re: [PATCHES] Better default_statistics_target |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2008-01-31 10:40:54 | Re: Truncate Triggers |