Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: minimal update

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: minimal update
Date: 2008-10-21 14:11:41
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> In that case, why not put the trigger in core so people can use it  
>> easily?
> One advantage of making it a contrib module is that discussing how/when
> to use it would fit more easily into the structure of the
> documentation.  There is no place in our docs that a "standard trigger"
> would fit without seeming like a wart; but a contrib module can document
> itself pretty much however it wants.

I was thinking a new section on 'trigger functions' of the functions and 
operators chapter, linked from the 'create trigger' page. That doesn't 
seem like too much of a wart.



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2008-10-21 14:15:12
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby utility and administrator functions
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2008-10-21 14:10:16
Subject: Re: corrupted pg_proc?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group