On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:50:13AM +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote: > ?hel kenal p?eval (p?hap?ev, 23. jaanuar 2005, 15:49-0600), kirjutas Jim > C. Nasby: > > Sorry if this is old, but I couldn't find it in the archives... > > > > How difficult would it be to provide a means to define a trigger in one > > statement? Something like a combination of CREATE TRIGGER and CREATE > > FUNCTION? Being able to define them seperately is awesome for generic > > cases where you can use one function for a bunch of different tables, > > but it's a pain in the cases where you need a unique trigger for one > > table. > > The same is true for the need to define RETURN TYPE of a function > separately from the function. > > So: How difficult would it be to provide a means to define a function > and its return type in one statement?
I'm sorry, I must be missing something... if you're defining a trigger without seperately defining a function for it, why do you need to worry about the return type of anything? -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 Windows: "Where do you want to go today?" Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?" FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?" ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
