From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
Cc: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Laurette Cisneros <laurette(at)nextbus(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Disabling triggers (was Re: pgsql 7.2.3 crash) |
Date: | 2002-10-14 04:20:27 |
Message-ID: | 5587.1034569227@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I was wondering whether an ALTER TABLE command is really the right way
>> to approach this. If we had an ALTER-type command, presumably the
>> implication is that its effects would be global to all backends. But
>> the uses that I've seen for suspending trigger invocations would be
>> happier with a local, temporary setting that only affects the current
>> backend. Any thoughts about that?
> I may be missing something here, but the only circumstance where i could
> see such being useful would be a load of a database ... other then that,
> how would overriding triggers be considered a good thing?
Well, exactly: it seems like something you'd want to constrain as
tightly as possible. So some kind of local, SET-like operation seems
safer to me than a global, ALTER-TABLE-like operation.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-14 04:34:52 | Re: [HACKERS] ALTER TABLE ... ADD COLUMN |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-14 04:15:51 | Re: experiences with autocommit functionality in 7.3 |