On Thu, Aug 7, 2025, at 1:53 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > Minimally - you should to use PLPY_DML_TRIGGER instead PLPY_TRIGGER >
I didn't use DML terminology for the same reason Peter said in another thread [1]; let's *not* introduce a new terminology (DML trigger). > Maybe the name "trigtype" can be better than "is_trigger". The > similarity with PLpgSQL has some benefits, but in this case I think so > the plpgsql design (of this case) is minimally confusing (and really > the related part in plpgsql_compile_callback can be cleaned). How much > - this is a question. There are two different things that are mixed > together (and this is what I dislike): > I'm fine with trigger kind or trigger type but I wouldn't like to use DML trigger. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1379995202.8103.4.ca...@vanquo.pezone.net -- Euler Taveira EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/
