On Mon, 16 Mar 1998, Jan Wieck wrote:
> Peter Mount wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Jan Wieck wrote:
> > > I think triggers are more appropriate.
> > >
> > I'm begining to agree with you here.
> > So far, I've got the trigger to work, so if a row of a table is deleted,
> > or an oid referencing a BLOB is updated, then the old BLOB is deleted.
> > This removes the orphaned BLOB problem.
> > The only problem I have now, is:
> > How to get a trigger to be automatically created on a table when the
> > table is created. This would be required, so the end user doesn't have
> > to do this (normally from within an application).
> > This would be required, esp. for expanding the text type (or memo, or
> > whatever).
> So you think of a new type that automatically causes trigger
> definition if used in CREATE/ALTER TABLE.
> Agree - would be a nice feature.
Exactly, it would be a nice feature.
I'm about to look at rules to see if that's a way to do it, but seeing it
took me about 30 mins to do this with Triggers (and thats when I've never
used them before), then it would be nice to use these.
Peter T Mount petermount(at)earthling(dot)net or pmount(at)maidast(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk
Main Homepage: http://www.demon.co.uk/finder
Work Homepage: http://www.maidstone.gov.uk Work EMail: peter(at)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Henry B. Hotz||Date: 1998-03-16 20:48:07|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] datetime default 'now' broken?|
|Previous:||From: Jackson, DeJuan||Date: 1998-03-16 18:35:48|
|Subject: RE: [HACKERS] datetime default 'now' broken?|