On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Tom Lane wrote: > Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Didn't someone (Peter?) say that the mandated firing order was based on > > creation order/time in SQL99? > > It does say that: > > 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. > > However, this strikes me as fairly brain-dead; it's unnecessarily hard > to control the order of trigger execution. You have to drop and > recreate triggers if you want to insert a new one at a desired position. > Worse, if you create several triggers in the same transaction, they'll > have the same timestamp --- leaving you right back in the > implementation-defined case. But if you want to make your rearrangement > atomically with respect to other transactions, you have little choice > but to drop/recreate in one xact. Looks like a catch-22 to me. > > ISTM we had discussed this before and concluded that name order was > a more reasonable definition. Nobody had got round to doing anything > about it though. (Indeed my current hack was not intended to provide > a predictable firing order, it just fell out that way...)
I agree that name is better, I wasn't sure if we'd reached a consensus on it or if the conversation drifted away due to the fact that noone was looking at it at the time. ---------------------------(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
