In article <24300(dot)1074614549(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tuesday 20 January 2004 00:01, Neil Conway wrote:
>>> Yeah, I didn't get around to implementing that. If anyone wants this
>>> feature, I'd encourage them to step up to the plate -- I'm not sure
>>> when I'll get the opportunity/motivation to implement this myself.
>> I didn't think they'd be meaningful for a statement-level trigger. Surely
>> OLD/NEW are by definition row-level details.
> According to the complainants, OLD/NEW are commonly available as
> recordsets (tables) inside a statement trigger.
> I'm not very clear on
> how that works myself --- in particular, one would think it important to
> be able to work with corresponding pairs of OLD and NEW rows, which
> would be painful with a table-like abstraction.
Why? If the underlying table has a primary key, finding corresponding
pairs is trivial; if there isn't, it's impossible.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Stephan Szabo||Date: 2004-01-20 16:30:29|
|Subject: Re: Trigger question|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-01-20 16:02:29|
|Subject: Re: Trigger question |