On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 03:49:45PM -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > 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?
I think what Hannu was talking about is the idea of functions that return a RECORD or SETOF RECORD except that the types of all the columns are fixed. Nothing much to do w/triggers. Cheers, D -- David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote! ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
