"Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, I strongly lean towards the behavior in this case being to only
> fire the parent statement-level trigger. I could support the other way as
> well: I'm not going to add any triggers to the children anyway, so as long
> as the parent fires, I'll be happy. Right now, this is a serious bug for
> my app, as there is no INSERT INTO ONLY syntax, and thus there is no way
> to effect a statement-level trigger using an insert on a table that is
> inherited from. My workaround is to insert and then update all the rows.
You're not making a lot of sense here, because INSERT always affects
exactly the named table. It's UPDATE and DELETE where the behavior
is debatable.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
