Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 10:55:30AM -0400, Carlos Moreno wrote:
I guess the concern came up as result of a particular
situation, in which failing to properly process the
trigger function is not that crucial (I wanted to
update some additional information that is "optional",
an
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 10:55:30AM -0400, Carlos Moreno wrote:
>
> I guess the concern came up as result of a particular
> situation, in which failing to properly process the
> trigger function is not that crucial (I wanted to
> update some additional information that is "optional",
> and that can
Richard Huxton wrote:
I just noticed this (odd?) behaviour, and it kind of
scares me.
Isn't this a little fragile? Is there something I
could do to avoid this situation? Should trigger
functions be extremely simple as to guarantee that
an error would never happen?
There's nothing else it can do,
Carlos Moreno wrote:
Hi,
I just noticed this (odd?) behaviour, and it kind of
scares me.
Isn't this a little fragile? Is there something I
could do to avoid this situation? Should trigger
functions be extremely simple as to guarantee that
an error would never happen?
There's nothing else it can
Hi,
I just noticed this (odd?) behaviour, and it kind of
scares me.
For testing purposes, I put a deliberate syntax error;
this wouldn't happen in a real-life situation. But what
if the error gets triggered by something that happens
later on? say, if the trigger function uses a field
that later o
