> > That seems fairly arbitrary; someone else might wish the opposite,
> > depending on the details of what they want to do.
>
> We should probably check first whether the SQL standard has anything to
> say about the relative ordering of foreign key cascade actions versus
> triggers. (I would tend to think that triggers come after FK actions.
> However, things might get tricky when cascade actions fire triggers of
> their own.)
>
> The order of execution of "pure" triggers meanwhile is defined thus:
>
> The order of execution of a set of triggers is ascending by value
> of their timestamp of creation in their descriptors, such that the
> oldest trigger executes first. If one or more triggers have the
> same timestamp value, then their relative order of execution is
> implementation-defined. [4.35]
>
> This is probably what happens in practice anyway, so it might make sense
> to follow this rule.
Yep, that would be a pretty strong vote for OID order.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
