From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, 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 22:03:36 |
Message-ID: | 5175.1329516216@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Has anybody stopped to look at the SQL standard for this? In-line
>> trigger definitions are actually what they intend, IIRC.
> In which language? Do we need to include PL/PSM to be compliant, and
> use that by default?
Darn if I know. But let's make sure we don't paint ourselves into a
corner such that we couldn't support the standard's syntax sometime
in the future.
> In that case we might want to force people to
> spell out LANGUAGE plpgsql when we don't provide for PSM yet, so that we
> avoid some backwards compatibility problems down the road.
I suspect that we can avoid that as long as the command is based around
a string literal for the function body. OTOH, CREATE FUNCTION has never
had a default for LANGUAGE, and we don't get many complaints about that,
so maybe insisting that LANGUAGE be supplied for an in-line trigger
isn't unreasonable.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-02-17 22:13:20 | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |
Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-02-17 21:56:19 | Re: Triggers with DO functionality |