| From: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Triggers on columns |
| Date: | 2009-09-04 00:53:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20090904093618.CE13.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> The SQL standard specifies that a trigger is fired if the column is
> mentioned in the UPDATE statement, independent of whether the value is
> actually changed through the update.
Hmmm, what does the SQL standard say about modification of NEW values?
Should we fire column triggers when their columns are mentioned in the
UPDATE statement, but modified by another triggers?
I believe we should fire them, but it is inconsistent because we will
make different decisions whether NEW values are modified or not.
Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-09-04 01:16:29 | Re: [PATCH] Largeobject access controls |
| Previous Message | Josh Williams | 2009-09-04 00:45:51 | Elementary dependency look-up |