From: | "Euler Taveira" <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: event trigger support for PL/Python |
Date: | 2025-08-07 23:31:18 |
Message-ID: | 4027d006-d045-433d-b679-9831803aff04@app.fastmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 7, 2025, at 1:53 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Minimally - you should to use PLPY_DML_TRIGGER instead PLPY_TRIGGER
>
I didn't use DML terminology for the same reason Peter said in another thread
[1]; let's *not* introduce a new terminology (DML trigger).
> Maybe the name "trigtype" can be better than "is_trigger". The
> similarity with PLpgSQL has some benefits, but in this case I think so
> the plpgsql design (of this case) is minimally confusing (and really
> the related part in plpgsql_compile_callback can be cleaned). How much
> - this is a question. There are two different things that are mixed
> together (and this is what I dislike):
>
I'm fine with trigger kind or trigger type but I wouldn't like to use DML
trigger.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1379995202.8103.4.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
--
Euler Taveira
EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2025-08-07 23:38:03 | Re: POC: Parallel processing of indexes in autovacuum |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2025-08-07 22:02:56 | Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory? |