On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> wrote: > That seems a lot cleaner than the proposal on the Wiki page. If we > go that route, it makes sense to fire the BEFORE INSERT triggers > before attempting the insert and then fire BEFORE UPDATE triggers > before attempting the UPDATE. If either succeeds, I think we > should fire the corresponding AFTER triggers. We already allow a > BEFORE triggers to run and then omit the triggering operation > without an error, so I don't see that as a problem. This makes a > lot more sense to me than attempting to add a new UPSERT trigger > type.
You realize that that's exactly what my patch does, right? AFAICT the only confusion that my patch has is with statement-level triggers, as discussed on the Wiki page. I think that the row-level trigger behavior is fine; a lot more thought has gone into it. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
