Re: Statement-level triggers and inheritance

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Statement-level triggers and inheritance
Date: 2009-01-19 22:55:55
Message-ID: 200901192255.n0JMttT21754@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > On Thursday 15 January 2009 02:08:42 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Added to TODO:
> >> Have statement-level triggers fire for all tables in an
> >> inheritance hierarchy
>
> > I don't think that was really the conclusion from the thread.
>
> > As far as I can interpret the opinions, statement level triggers should fire
> > on the parent table only, rather than on some child, as it currently does.
>
> I think the consensus was that each table should have its own statement
> triggers (if any) fire. Which is one possible reading of Bruce's TODO
> item, but it's surely not clearly worded.

Sorry I had that wording wrong; TODO updated to:

When statement-level triggers are defined on a parent table, have them
fire only on the parent table, and fire child table triggers only where
appropriate

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2009-01-20 02:13:48 Re: FWD: Re: Updated backslash consistency patch
Previous Message Brendan Jurd 2009-01-19 22:26:27 Re: Meridiem markers (was: [BUGS] Incorrect "invalid AM/PM string" error from to_timestamp)