| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: plpgsql lacks generic identifier for record in triggers... |
| Date: | 2004-11-25 03:24:26 |
| Message-ID: | 24065.1101353066@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> writes:
> ... Better yet, could TRIGGER functions be allowed to
> return nothing (ala VOID)?
> Which would tell the backend to assume that the row wasn't changed and
> proceed with its handling. This is the preferred approach, IMHO... but
> I think is the hardest to achieve (I haven't looked to see what'd be
> involved yet).
plperl is doing it that way, so I don't see why plpgsql couldn't allow
it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-11-25 03:36:35 | Re: Stack not being popped correctly (was: Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql lacks generic identifier for record in triggers...) |
| Previous Message | Sean Chittenden | 2004-11-25 01:42:36 | Stack not being popped correctly (was: Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql lacks generic identifier for record in triggers...) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2004-11-25 03:33:45 | Re: Postresql 8.0 Beta 3 - SELECT ... FOR UPDATE |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-11-25 03:13:23 | Re: Postresql 8.0 Beta 3 - SELECT ... FOR UPDATE |