| From: | "Euler Taveira" <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, "Marcos Pegoraro" <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br> |
| Cc: | "Daniel Gustafsson" <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Trigger position |
| Date: | 2021-09-15 15:13:29 |
| Message-ID: | bf7292b9-7cf3-43f8-8676-df2a1f47d716@www.fastmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Euler Taveira
EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2021-09-15 15:23:34 | Re: Trigger position |
| Previous Message | Marcos Pegoraro | 2021-09-15 15:10:34 | Re: Trigger position |