On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:51 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> wrote: >> Although the last go-around does suggest that there is at least one >> point of difference on the semantics. You seem to want to fire the >> BEFORE INSERT triggers before determining whether this will be an >> INSERT or an UPDATE. That seems like a bad idea to me
Indeed, the current behavior breaks even the canonical "keep track of how many posts are in a thread" trigger example because INSERT triggers are fired for an effective row UPDATE. I can't see how that's acceptable. > Well, it isn't that I'm doing it because I think that it is a great > idea, with everything to recommend it. It's more like I don't see any > practical alternative. I proposed an alternative that avoids this surprise and might allow some other benefits. Can you please look into that? Even a "clarify this", "this couldn't possibly work" or "you're not a major contributor so your arguments are invalid" response. ;) I admit I initially misunderstood some details about the current behavior. I can dig into the code and write a clearer and/or more detailed spec if I had even *some* feedback. Regards, Marti -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
