On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 08:26:47AM +0000, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 23 February 2012 07:15, Gianni Ciolli <gianni(dot)ciolli(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it> wrote:
> > Another complication: anonymous triggers would either have to be
> > alone, or provide a mechanism to manage a sequence of anonymous
> > triggers on the same table (such as "replace the third trigger with
> > ..." or "move trigger #4 in position #2", or deciding their order of
> > execution).
> Isn't the order of execution alphabetical by trigger name in
> PostgreSQL? The Triggers themselves wouldn't be anonymous, we'd still
> be naming them. It's the referenced functions that would no longer
> need defining, and even those probably won't technically be anonymous
> as they'll need cataloguing somewhere.
You're right, sorry.
I misread the proposal as "anonymous triggers" when instead it is
"(named) triggers each implemented via an anonymous function".
Dr. Gianni Ciolli - 2ndQuadrant Italia
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
gianni(dot)ciolli(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it | www.2ndquadrant.it
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2012-02-23 09:16:11|
|Subject: incompatible pointer types with newer zlib|
|Previous:||From: Etsuro Fujita||Date: 2012-02-23 08:37:27|
|Subject: Re: REASSIGN OWNED lacks support for FDWs|