On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I think the > right thing here is to replace "before" with a three-valued enum, > perhaps called "timing", so as to force people to take another look > at any code that touches the field directly.
+1. That seems much nicer. > Although we already have macros TRIGGER_FIRED_AFTER/TRIGGER_FIRED_BEFORE > that seem to mask the details here, the changes you had to make in > contrib illustrate that the macros' callers could still be embedding this > basic mistake of testing "!before" when they mean "after" or vice versa. > I wonder whether we should intentionally rename the macros to force > people to take another look at their logic. Or is that going too far? > Comments anyone? I'm less sold on this one. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
