On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Peter Eisentraut<pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 10:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> If TRIGGER ON UPDATE OF foo_id means whether the value actually >> changed, then I can skip the check. If TRIGGER ON UPDATE OF foo_id >> means whether the column was present in the update list, then it >> doesn't. Perhaps there are some use cases where we can be certain >> that we only care about whether the value was in the update list, and >> not whether it was changed, but off the top of my head it seems like >> 0% of mine would fall into that category. > > Yeah, probably. I didn't make this up; I'm just reading the > standard. ;-) > > But of course you can already do what you do, so you don't lose anything > if it turns out that this proposed feature ends up working the other > way.
Sure, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense to spend a lot of time implementing the standard behavior unless someone can provide a plausible use case. If that means we have to give our non-standard feature an incompatible syntax or whatever so as not to create confusion with the "standard" behavior, then let's do that, because it sounds WAY more useful. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
