Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:58:49 PM Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> I tricked that in the grammar, the type is called cmdtrigger but I
>> though it wouldn't be a good choice for the SQL statement.
> Hm. I am decidedly unhappy with that grammar hackery... But then maybe I am
> squeamish.
Multi-word type names are a serious pain in the ass; they require
hackery in a lot of places. We support the ones that the SQL spec
requires us to, but I will object in the strongest terms to inventing
any that are not required by spec. I object in even stronger terms to
the incredibly klugy way you did it here.
If you think "cmdtrigger" isn't a good name maybe you should have
picked a different one to start with.
While I'm looking at the grammar ... it also seems like a serious
PITA from a maintenance standpoint that we're now going to have to
adjust the CREATE COMMAND TRIGGER productions every time somebody
thinks of a new SQL command. Maybe we should drop this whole idea
of specifying which commands a trigger acts on at the SQL level,
and just have one-size-fits-all command triggers. Or perhaps have
the selection be on the basis of strings that are matched to command
tags, instead of grammar constructs.
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
