Re: delta relations in AFTER triggers

2014-07-28 19:27 GMT+02:00 Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>:

> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Do you have some other suggestion? Keep in mind that it must allow
> > the code which will *generate* the transition tables to know
> > whether any of the attached triggers use a given transition table
> > for the specific operation, regardless of the language of the
> > trigger function.
>
> You will need to access the pg_proc record of the trigger function
> anyway, so it's just a matter of coming up with syntax that makes
> sense, right?
>
> What I had in mind was that we could re-use function argument
> declaration syntax. For instance, use the "argmode" specifier to
> declare OLD and NEW. Shouldn't cause grammar conflicts because the
> current OUT and INOUT aren't reserved keywords.
>
> We could also re-use the refcursor type, which already has bindings in
> some PLs, if that's not too much overhead. That would make the
> behavior straightforward without introducing new constructs, plus you
> can pass them around between functions. Though admittedly it's
> annoying to integrate cursor results into queries.
>
> Something like:
>
> CREATE FUNCTION trig(OLD old_rows refcursor, NEW new_rows refcursor)
> RETURNS trigger LANGUAGE plpgsql AS '...';
>

I dislike this proposal - it is strongly inconsistent with current trigger
design

Regards

Pavel

>
> Or maybe if the grammar allows, we could spell out "NEW TABLE", "OLD
> TABLE", but that's redundant since you can already deduce that from
> the refcursor type.
>
> It could also be extended for different types, like tid[], and maybe
> "record" for the FOR EACH ROW variant (dunno if that can be made to
> work).
>
> Regards,
> Marti
>
>
> --
> 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
>