| From: | Harald Fuchs <hf0406x(at)protecting(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Porting MSSQL to PGSQL (Was: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?) |
| Date: | 2006-05-22 15:24:17 |
| Message-ID: | 87veryrske.fsf@srv.protecting.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
In article <20060522150647(dot)GE24404(at)svana(dot)org>,
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:00:22AM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>> > T-SQL has statement-level triggers, and they get used a lot (some big apps
>> > ONLY put code in triggers). Statement-level triggers are very efficient for
>> > maintaining aggregates; the closest PG has are rewrite rules.
>>
>> Yeah, I wish PostgreSQL had them. I've got clients that could certainly
>> make use of them.
> What are you referring to that is not supported currently?
Probably he means that a complete implementation of statement-level
triggers should include a way to access the rows affected by the
trigger call.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dawid Kuroczko | 2006-05-22 15:30:12 | Re: Porting MSSQL to PGSQL (Was: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?) |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-05-22 15:06:47 | Re: Porting MSSQL to PGSQL (Was: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dawid Kuroczko | 2006-05-22 15:30:12 | Re: Porting MSSQL to PGSQL (Was: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-22 15:23:19 | Re: Duplicate definition of LOCALEDIR |