On 3 March 2012 13:45, Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> CREATE COMMAND TRIGGER name ... properties ...; >>>> DROP COMMAND TRIGGER name; >>>> >>>> full stop. If you want to run the same trigger function on some >>>> more commands, add another trigger name. >>> >>> +1 >> >> +1. I suggested the same thing a while back. > > Yeah, I know, I just wanted to hear from more people before ditching out > a part of the work I did, and Thom was balancing in the opposite > direction.
I was? I agreed with Tom's comment, but I did query your interpretation of it with regards to the CREATE COMMAND TRIGGER statement. It seems you removed the ability to create a command trigger against multiple commands, but I don't think that was the problem. It was the DROP COMMAND TRIGGER statement that garnered comment, as it makes more sense to drop the entire trigger than individual commands for that trigger. Initially I had proposed a way to drop all commands on a trigger at once as an additional option, but just dropping it completely or not at all is preferable. But if there is agreement to have multiple commands on a command trigger, I'm wondering whether we should have an OR separator rather than a comma? The reason is that regular triggers define a list of statements this way. Personally I prefer the comma syntax, but my concern (not a strong concern) is for lack of consistency. -- Thom -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
