| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER? |
| Date: | 2012-03-09 22:41:46 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobPgOUTp_8W38j3NCYOWa-pd_7f-HDKKt1LAOxBiayLmw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> ok - it has sense, but it has sense only with some "smart" statements
> (like CHECK). Without these statements I have to directly call checker
> function and then concept of generalised checkers has not sense.
I agree.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thom Brown | 2012-03-09 22:42:49 | Re: Command Triggers, patch v11 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-09 22:41:12 | Re: Publish checkpoint timing and sync files summary data to pg_stat_bgwriter |