Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Trigger question

From: Harald Fuchs <hf118(at)protecting(dot)net>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Trigger question
Date: 2004-01-20 16:15:31
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
In article <24300(dot)1074614549(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tuesday 20 January 2004 00:01, Neil Conway wrote:
>>> Yeah, I didn't get around to implementing that. If anyone wants this
>>> feature, I'd encourage them to step up to the plate -- I'm not sure
>>> when I'll get the opportunity/motivation to implement this myself.

>> I didn't think they'd be meaningful for a statement-level trigger. Surely 
>> OLD/NEW are by definition row-level details.

> According to the complainants, OLD/NEW are commonly available as
> recordsets (tables) inside a statement trigger.


> I'm not very clear on
> how that works myself --- in particular, one would think it important to
> be able to work with corresponding pairs of OLD and NEW rows, which
> would be painful with a table-like abstraction.

Why?  If the underlying table has a primary key, finding corresponding
pairs is trivial; if there isn't, it's impossible.

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Stephan SzaboDate: 2004-01-20 16:30:29
Subject: Re: Trigger question
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-01-20 16:02:29
Subject: Re: Trigger question

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group