Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes: > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: >> Has anybody stopped to look at the SQL standard for this? In-line >> trigger definitions are actually what they intend, IIRC.
> In which language? Do we need to include PL/PSM to be compliant, and > use that by default? Darn if I know. But let's make sure we don't paint ourselves into a corner such that we couldn't support the standard's syntax sometime in the future. > In that case we might want to force people to > spell out LANGUAGE plpgsql when we don't provide for PSM yet, so that we > avoid some backwards compatibility problems down the road. I suspect that we can avoid that as long as the command is based around a string literal for the function body. OTOH, CREATE FUNCTION has never had a default for LANGUAGE, and we don't get many complaints about that, so maybe insisting that LANGUAGE be supplied for an in-line trigger isn't unreasonable. 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