| From: | "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Statement-level triggers and inheritance |
| Date: | 2008-12-01 19:31:49 |
| Message-ID: | 54dd95a72f5ee7189fb1333879a7c1ba@biglumber.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
> You're not making a lot of sense here, because INSERT always affects
> exactly the named table. It's UPDATE and DELETE where the behavior
> is debatable.
*blink* Ah, right you are, had a typo in my testing script. Excellent
news, I'm now officially okay with either solution then. Thanks!
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
End Point Corporation
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200812011431
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iEYEAREDAAYFAkk0O5YACgkQvJuQZxSWSsg20QCcCyWXQiIb8AwBJ0DixdJHXce5
2IAAoN1lNij5Oqz0ay4kDnvyJ72xVheR
=sW9/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-12-01 19:38:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Reg: Nested query |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2008-12-01 19:00:50 | Re: New to_timestamp implementation is pretty strict |