Re: Triggers with DO functionality

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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