On 17 February 2012 21:07, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > > > On 02/17/2012 03:58 PM, Thom Brown wrote: >> >> On 17 February 2012 20:40, Dimitri Fontaine<dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> >> wrote: >>> >>> Thom Brown<t...@linux.com> writes: >>>> >>>> And thinking about it, DO is a bit nonsense here, so maybe we'd just >>>> have something like: >>>> >>>> CREATE TRIGGER... >>>> AS $$ >>>> BEGIN >>>> END; >>>> $$; >>>> >>>> i.e. the same as a function. >>> >>> I like that. How do you tell which language the trigger is written in? >> >> Exactly the same as a function I'd imagine. Just tack LANGUAGE >> <language>; at the end. >> >>> I'm not so sure about other function properties (SET, COST, ROWS, >>> SECURITY DEFINER etc) because applying default and punting users to go >>> use the full CREATE FUNCTION syntax would be a practical answer here. >> >> *shrug* There's also the question about the stability of the trigger's >> own in-line function too (i.e. IMMUTABLE, STABLE, VOLATILE). >> > > This is going to be pretty much a piece of syntactic sugar. Would it matter > that much if the trigger functions made thus are all volatile? If someone > wants the full function feature set they can always use CREATE FUNCTION > first. I think I'm with Dimitri - let's keep it simple.
Yes, always best to start with essential functionality. -- Thom -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
