Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Command Triggers, patch v11

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
Cc: Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Command Triggers, patch v11
Date: 2012-02-27 20:53:58
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> writes:
>> I've got a question regarding the function signatures required for
>> command triggers, and apologies if it's already been discussed to
>> death (I didn't see all the original conversations around this).
>> These differ from regular trigger functions which don't require any
>> arguments, and instead use special variables.  Why aren't we doing the
>> same for command triggers?  So instead of having the parameters

> Basically so that we don't have to special code support for each and
> every language out there.

FWIW, I agree with Thom on this.  If we do it as you suggest, I
confidently predict that it will be less than a year before we seriously
regret it.  Given all the discussion around this, it's borderline insane
to believe that the set of parameters to be passed to command triggers
is nailed down and won't need to change in the future.

As for special coding of support, it hardly seems onerous when every
language that has triggers at all has got some provision for the
existing trigger parameters.  A bit of copying and pasting should get
the job done.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2012-02-27 21:22:03
Subject: Re: Command Triggers, patch v11
Previous:From: Andres FreundDate: 2012-02-27 20:43:49
Subject: Re: possible new option for wal_sync_method

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group