Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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