Re: Trigger position

st 15. 9. 2021 v 17:14 odesílatel Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> napsal:

> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021, at 10:51 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> In a computer system, alphabet letters are just a different way to
> present numbers, so you just choose ASCII letters that match what you
> want. You can use "AA_first_trigger", "BB_second_trigger",
> "AB_nope_this_is_second" and you'll be fine; you can do
> "AAB_oops_really_second" afterwards, and so on. The integer numbering
> system doesn't seem very useful/flexible when seen in this light.
>
> ... or renumber all trigger positions in a single transaction. I agree that
> letters are more flexible than numbers but some users are number-oriented.
>
> I'm afraid an extra mechanism to determine the order to fire triggers will
> confuse programmers if someone decides to use both. Besides that, we have
> to
> expend a few cycles to determine the exact trigger execution order.
>

Triggers that depend on execution order are pretty hell. It is a clean
signal of some crazy design and overusing of triggers.

Personally I prefer to don't have any similar feature just as a strong
signal for developers - Don't do this. Unfortunately (but good for
business) . A lot of migrated applications from Oracle use this terrible
style. I like PL/SQL, but the most ugly code that I saw was in PL/SQL. So
this feature can be necessary for migrations from Oracle, but I don't see
reasons to be more visible.

Regards

Pavel

>
> --
> Euler Taveira
> EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/
>
>