From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER? |
Date: | 2012-03-07 05:17:07 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRAyvqetWjOe22RqmiDmBrAkjxkdhxq4x_GytqF8Q5_qGQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello
Robert, please, can you comment to this issue? And other, please. I am
able to fix syntax to any form where we will have agreement.
Regards
Pavel
2012/3/6 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> Hello
>
>>
>> When I try to look on some multicheck form:
>>
>> a) CHECK FUNCTION ALL ON table_name
>> b) CHECK TRIGGER ALL ON table_name
>>
>> then more natural form is @b (for me). Personally, I can live with
>> one, both or second form, although I prefer CHECK TRIGGER.
>>
>
> I though some time more.
>
> if somebody would to check all custom function, then he can write
>
> CHECK FUNCTION ALL
>
> what about triggers?
>
> CHECK TRIGGER ALL
>
> but if we don't implement CHECK TRIGGER, then this statement will look like
>
> CHECK FUNCTION ALL ON ALL ???
>
> and this is unclean - probably it doesn't mean - check trigger
> function with any table. So this is other argument for CREATE TRIGGER.
>
> Nice a day
>
> Pavel
>
>
>> notes?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Pavel
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> Robert Haas
>>> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>>> To make changes to your subscription:
>>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-03-07 05:35:06 | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |
Previous Message | Dan Ports | 2012-03-07 02:05:01 | a slightly stale comment |