Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > On Thursday 15 January 2009 02:08:42 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Added to TODO:
> >> Have statement-level triggers fire for all tables in an
> >> inheritance hierarchy
>
> > I don't think that was really the conclusion from the thread.
>
> > As far as
On Sunday 18 January 2009 08:24:47 Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > On Thursday 15 January 2009 02:08:42 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Added to TODO:
> >> Have statement-level triggers fire for all tables in an
> >> inheritance hierarchy
> >
> > I don't think that was really the conclusi
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On Thursday 15 January 2009 02:08:42 Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Added to TODO:
>> Have statement-level triggers fire for all tables in an
>> inheritance hierarchy
> I don't think that was really the conclusion from the thread.
> As far as I can interpret the opinions, sta
On Thursday 15 January 2009 02:08:42 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Added to TODO:
>
> Have statement-level triggers fire for all tables in an
> inheritance hierarchy
I don't think that was really the conclusion from the thread.
As far as I can interpret the opinions, statement level triggers
Added to TODO:
Have statement-level triggers fire for all tables in an
inheritance hierarchy
---
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
[ There is text before PGP section. ]
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
> You're not making a lot of sense here, because INSERT always affects
> exactly the named table. It's UPDATE and DELETE where the behavior
> is debatable.
*blink* Ah, right you are, had a typo in my testing script. Excellent
news, I'm now off
"Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, I strongly lean towards the behavior in this case being to only
> fire the parent statement-level trigger. I could support the other way as
> well: I'm not going to add any triggers to the children anyway, so as long
> as the parent fires
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
>>> My feeling is that it ought to fire such triggers on *each* target.
>> This would amount to statement level triggers firing multiple times per
>> statement wouldn't it?
> No, because they'd be different triggers. A trigger on a parent tab
Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday 28 November 2008 16:59:19 Tom Lane wrote:
>> My feeling is that it ought to fire such triggers on *each* target.
> This would amount to statement level triggers firing multiple times per
> statement wouldn't it?
No, because they'd be different
On Friday 28 November 2008 16:59:19 Tom Lane wrote:
> "Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Looks like inheritance causes a statement-level trigger to fire on
> > the last evaluated table in the inheritance chain. Is this the
> > desired behavior?
>
> Hm, I think whoever wrote the s
"Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Looks like inheritance causes a statement-level trigger to fire on
> the last evaluated table in the inheritance chain. Is this the
> desired behavior?
Hm, I think whoever wrote the statement-level trigger code completely
forgot to consider the p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
Looks like inheritance causes a statement-level trigger to fire on
the last evaluated table in the inheritance chain. Is this the
desired behavior? If so, is there any way to predict or drive
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 07:00:35PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> how far have you got with statement-level triggers development?
In PostgreSQL 7.3, statement-level triggers are not supported. In 7.4,
you can define statement-level triggers in C, PL/PgSQL, PL/Python, and
PL/Tcl. One piece of mi
Hello everybody,
how far have you got with statement-level triggers development?
Regards,
Claudio.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
14 matches
Mail list logo
