Re: Triggers with DO functionality

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>
Cc: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Triggers with DO functionality
Date: 2012-02-17 21:07:31
Message-ID: 4F3EC193.4070101@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 02/17/2012 03:58 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 17 February 2012 20:40, Dimitri Fontaine<dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
>> Thom Brown<thom(at)linux(dot)com> writes:
>>> And thinking about it, DO is a bit nonsense here, so maybe we'd just
>>> have something like:
>>>
>>> CREATE TRIGGER...
>>> AS $$
>>> BEGIN
>>> END;
>>> $$;
>>>
>>> i.e. the same as a function.
>> I like that. How do you tell which language the trigger is written in?
> Exactly the same as a function I'd imagine. Just tack LANGUAGE
> <language>; at the end.
>
>> I'm not so sure about other function properties (SET, COST, ROWS,
>> SECURITY DEFINER etc) because applying default and punting users to go
>> use the full CREATE FUNCTION syntax would be a practical answer here.
> *shrug* There's also the question about the stability of the trigger's
> own in-line function too (i.e. IMMUTABLE, STABLE, VOLATILE).
>

This is going to be pretty much a piece of syntactic sugar. Would it
matter that much if the trigger functions made thus are all volatile? If
someone wants the full function feature set they can always use CREATE
FUNCTION first. I think I'm with Dimitri - let's keep it simple.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thom Brown 2012-02-17 21:16:33 Re: Triggers with DO functionality
Previous Message Thom Brown 2012-02-17 20:58:59 Re: Triggers with DO functionality