| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL return value in after triggers |
| Date: | 2012-03-28 13:57:10 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoav_iDF=-j2fJXfFPNiC+89vzqVMT1MFnFuKNuvAUyqwQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> One thing that I'm concerned about with this is that it treats a plain
> RETURN in a BEFORE trigger as RETURN NULL, whereas arguably it should be
> an error. I haven't found a good way to handle that yet, but I'll keep
> looking.
I would be very much disinclined to change the behavior of BEFORE
triggers in this way, so I agree we need a way around that.
I'm going to mark this patch Returned with Feedback; I think it's 9.3
material at this point.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-03-28 13:57:40 | Re: 9.2 commitfest closure (was Command Triggers, v16) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-28 13:51:54 | Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY? |