> > But what about BEFORE insert/update triggers which could
> > insert records too?
> Well, what about them? It's already possible for a later
> BEFORE trigger to cause the actual insertion to be suppressed,
> so I don't see any difference from what we have now.
> If a BEFORE trigger takes actions on the assumption that the
> insert will happen, it's busted already.
This problem could be solved now by implementing *single* trigger.
In future, we could give users ability to specify trigger
But with proposed feature ...
> Mind you, I'm not actually advocating that we do any of this ;-).
I understand -:)
> I was just sketching a possible implementation approach in
> case someone wants to try it.
And I'm just sketching possible problems -:)
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-10-01 21:57:02|
|Subject: Re: cvs problem |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-10-01 21:41:39|
|Subject: Re: cvs tip problems |