Re: event trigger support for PL/Python

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/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?