From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | cnliou(at)eurosport(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: What Is The Firing Order? |
Date: | 2001-09-07 17:40:43 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.21.0109071035340.99311-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yes, the semantics of immediate and deferred triggers wouldn't change.
> I'm just suggesting that when the system has a choice of legal firing
> orders, it adopt an "alphabetical order" rule. AFAICS, all it would
> take to implement this is for RelationBuildTriggers to sort the list
> of triggers just after it's read them from pg_trigger and before it
> inserts them into the TriggerDesc structure (ie, about line 638 of
> trigger.c in current sources). The latter insertion is where they
> are divided into categories, so the sorting would end up only affecting
> the ordering within categories.
>
> The interesting question is not that, really, but whether an
> alphabetical-ordering rule will be useful and convenient. I don't
> recall exactly how the system chooses names for triggers that it creates
> --- if the user can't control those at all then this idea may not be
> helpful.
What other than foreign key constraints creates behind the scenes
triggers? The fk trigger names are currently RI_ConstraintTrigger_###.
I don't think there's any way right now to set their names (although
we could change the naming to <constraint name>_### or something like
that).
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2001-09-07 17:46:57 | Re: What Is The Firing Order? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-09-07 17:36:37 | Re: What Is The Firing Order? |