From: | Thomas Hallgren <thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Trigger function returning null |
Date: | 2004-08-13 16:08:53 |
Message-ID: | thhal-0i3/4Aas/WQIl8l+tUu24V2OTM1iCl6@mailblocks.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>Why not?
>
>The real answer is "it's historical and I didn't see any need to
>change it". But one could argue that a function returning NULL
>doesn't know it's supposed to be a trigger.
>
>
The reason I ask is that this behavior just bit me in PL/Java. Triggers
returning null didn't work. I've fixed it at my end by simply forcing
the isnull to false for triggers. I just wanted to know if there was
some deeper thought behind this that could result in side effects.
Perhaps you should either change this behavior or make a note it in
"Writing Trigger Functions in C"? Even if the documented example use a
local isnull, it's not evident that you have to do that.
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pierre-Frédéric Caillaud | 2004-08-13 16:12:34 | Reiser4 |
Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2004-08-13 15:20:04 | Re: Weird Database Performance problem! |