| From: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: delta relations in AFTER triggers |
| Date: | 2014-07-29 07:41:33 |
| Message-ID: | CABRT9RDYNRo2xT2o_sMENUVH0ki4W4hOEp6Rm6U_jqaYr1Sp+g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I dislike this proposal - it is strongly inconsistent with current trigger
> design
The real point I was trying to convey (in my previous email) is that
these declarations should be part of the trigger *function* not the
function-to-table relationship. CREATE TRIGGER shouldn't be in the
business of declaring new local variables for the trigger function.
Whether we define new syntax for that or re-use the argument list is
secondary.
But the inconsistency is deliberate, I find the current trigger API
horrible. Magic variables... Text-only TG_ARGV for arguments...
RETURNS trigger... No way to invoke trigger functions directly for
testing.
By not imitating past mistakes, maybe we can eventually arrive at a
language that makes sense.
Regards,
Marti
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2014-07-29 07:42:23 | Re: gaussian distribution pgbench -- splits v4 |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2014-07-29 06:49:50 | Re: delta relations in AFTER triggers |