Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 02/17/2012 03:58 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 17 February 2012 20:40, Dimitri Fontaine<dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote:
>>> 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.
> 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.
Volatility is a complete no-op for a trigger function anyway, as are
other planner parameters such as cost/rows, because there is no planning
involved in trigger calls.
Of the existing CREATE FUNCTION options, I think only LANGUAGE, SECURITY
DEFINER, and SET are of any possible interest for a trigger function.
And I don't have any problem deeming SET a second-order thing that you
should have to go use CREATE FUNCTION for. But perhaps SECURITY DEFINER
is a common enough need to justify including in this shorthand form.
Has anybody stopped to look at the SQL standard for this? In-line
trigger definitions are actually what they intend, IIRC.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
