On 06/18/2013 01:25 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> > and also one called >> > UPDATED >> > which would have two row vars called OLD and NEW >> > so you would access it like e.g. IF UPDATED.OLD.id = 7 >> > > nice idea > > +1 Much better naming than OLD_AND_NEW.
I'm not so sure about OLD NEW INSERTED DELETED in that I imagine we'd want to pick one pair and stick with it. Since using "INSERTED" / "DELETED" makes "UPDATED" make sense, and since "OLD" and "NEW" are already used to refer to the magic variables of those names in for each row triggers, I think INSERTED / UPDATED / DELETED is the way to go. INSERTED and UPDATED could just be views of the same data as UPDATED that show only the OLD or only the NEW composite type fields. That'd allow you to write a trigger without TG_OP tests in many cases, as UPDATED would always contain what you wanted. It seems slightly weird to have INSERTED and DELETED populated for an UPDATE, but when an UPDATE is logically an INSERT+DELETE anyway... -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
