On 10 October 2010 19:06, Tom Lane wrote:
> Applied with revisions.
Brilliant! Thank you very much.
> * I took out this change in planmain.c:
>
> + /*
> + * If the query target is a VIEW, it won't be in the jointree, but we
> + * need a dummy RelOptInfo node for it. This need
Bernd Helmle writes:
> --On 8. September 2010 09:00:33 +0100 Dean Rasheed
> wrote:
>> Here's an updated version with improved formatting and a few minor
>> wording changes to the triggers chapter.
> This version doesn't apply clean anymore due to some rejects in
> plainmain.c. Corrected versio
BTW, while I'm looking at this: it seems like the "index" arrays in
struct TrigDesc are really a lot more complication than they are worth.
It'd be far easier to dispense with them and instead iterate through
the main trigger array, skipping any triggers whose tgtype doesn't match
what we need. If
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Although we already have macros TRIGGER_FIRED_AFTER/TRIGGER_FIRED_BEFORE
>> that seem to mask the details here, the changes you had to make in
>> contrib illustrate that the macros' callers could still be embedding this
>>
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think the
> right thing here is to replace "before" with a three-valued enum,
> perhaps called "timing", so as to force people to take another look
> at any code that touches the field directly.
+1. That seems much nicer.
> Although we alread
Dean Rasheed writes:
> On 8 October 2010 16:50, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I've started looking at this patch now. I think it would have been best
>> submitted as two patches: one to add the SQL-spec "INSTEAD OF" trigger
>> functionality, and a follow-on to extend INSTEAD OF triggers to views.
> SQL-sp
On 8 October 2010 16:50, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bernd Helmle writes:
>> I would like to do some more tests/review, but going to mark this patch as
>> "Ready for Committer", so that someone more qualified on the executor part
>> can have a look on it during this commitfest, if that's okay for us?
>
> I
Bernd Helmle writes:
> I would like to do some more tests/review, but going to mark this patch as
> "Ready for Committer", so that someone more qualified on the executor part
> can have a look on it during this commitfest, if that's okay for us?
I've started looking at this patch now. I think
On 5 October 2010 21:17, Bernd Helmle wrote:
> Basic summary of this patch:
>
Thanks for the review.
> * The patch includes a fairly complete discussion about INSTEAD OF triggers
> and their usage on views. There are also additional enhancements to the RULE
> documentation, which seems, given th
--On 30. September 2010 07:38:18 +0100 Dean Rasheed
wrote:
This version doesn't apply clean anymore due to some rejects in
plainmain.c. Corrected version attached.
Ah yes, those pesky bits have been rotting while I wasn't looking.
Thanks for fixing them!
Basic summary of this patch:
*
On 29 September 2010 20:18, Bernd Helmle wrote:
>
>
> --On 8. September 2010 09:00:33 +0100 Dean Rasheed
> wrote:
>
>> Here's an updated version with improved formatting and a few minor
>> wording changes to the triggers chapter.
>
> This version doesn't apply clean anymore due to some rejects in
--On 23. September 2010 08:59:32 +0100 Dean Rasheed
wrote:
Yes, I agree. To me this is the least surprising behaviour. I think a
more common case would be where the trigger computed a value (such as
the 'last updated' example). The executor doesn't have any kind of a
handle on the row inser
On 23 September 2010 00:26, Marko Tiikkaja
wrote:
> On 2010-09-23 1:16 AM, Bernd Helmle wrote:
>>
>> INSERT INTO vfoo VALUES('helmle', 2) RETURNING *;
>> text | id
>> +
>> helmle | 2
>> (1 row)
>>
>> SELECT * FROM vfoo;
>> text | id
>> ---+
>> bernd | 2
>> (1 row)
>>
>
On 2010-09-23 1:16 AM, Bernd Helmle wrote:
INSERT INTO vfoo VALUES('helmle', 2) RETURNING *;
text | id
+
helmle | 2
(1 row)
SELECT * FROM vfoo;
text | id
---+
bernd | 2
(1 row)
This is solvable by a properly designed trigger function, but maybe we need
to do som
--On 5. September 2010 09:09:55 +0100 Dean Rasheed
wrote:
I had a first look on your patch, great work!
Attached is an updated patch with more tests and docs, and a few minor
code tidy ups. I think that the INSTEAD OF triggers part of the patch
is compliant with Feature T213 of the SQL 200
On 7 September 2010 02:03, David Christensen wrote:
>
> On Sep 5, 2010, at 3:09 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>
>> On 15 August 2010 18:38, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>>> Here is a WIP patch implementing triggers on VIEWs ...
>>>
>>> There are still a number of things left todo:
>>> - extend ALTER VIEW with
On Sep 5, 2010, at 3:09 AM, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 15 August 2010 18:38, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> Here is a WIP patch implementing triggers on VIEWs ...
>>
>> There are still a number of things left todo:
>> - extend ALTER VIEW with enable/disable trigger commands
>> - much more testing
>>
On 16 August 2010 18:50, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dean Rasheed writes:
>> On 15 August 2010 18:38, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>>> There are still a number of things left todo:
>>> - extend ALTER VIEW with enable/disable trigger commands
>
>> On further reflection, I wonder if the ability to disable VIEW
>> t
Dean Rasheed writes:
> On 15 August 2010 18:38, Dean Rasheed wrote:
>> There are still a number of things left todo:
>> - extend ALTER VIEW with enable/disable trigger commands
> On further reflection, I wonder if the ability to disable VIEW
> triggers is needed/wanted at all.
AFAIK the only r
On 15 August 2010 18:38, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> There are still a number of things left todo:
> - extend ALTER VIEW with enable/disable trigger commands
On further reflection, I wonder if the ability to disable VIEW
triggers is needed/wanted at all. I just noticed that while it is
possible to dis
20 matches
Mail list logo
