On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 03:02:24PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 09:33:58AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Dimitri Fontaine > >> <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote: > >> > Thanks for commiting the fixes. About the regression tests, I think > >> > you're right, but then I can't see how to include such a test. Maybe you > >> > could add the other one, though? > >> > >> Can you point me specifically at what you have in mind so I can make > >> sure I'm considering the right thing? > >> > >> > +1 for this version, thanks. > >> > >> OK, committed that also. > > > > Also, I assume we no longer want after triggers on system tables, so I > > removed that from the TODO list and added event triggers as a completed > > item. > > Seems reasonable. Event triggers are not completed in the sense that > there is a lot more stuff we can do with this architecture, but we've > got a basic implementation now and that's progress. And they do > address the use case that triggers on system tables would have > targeted, I think, but better.
Right. Users would always be chasing implementation details if they tried to trigger on system tables. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
