On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:59 +0530, NikhilS wrote: > Hi, > > The only problem I have with this is that the shops I know > with big > > partitioned tables favor triggers over rules for both > performance reason and > > a cleaner implementation. Even with automated rule creation > this isnt going > > to change afaics... not to mention we already create our > rules & triggers > > automatically, so really this just isn't exciting to me > (though it may make > > it easier for people getting in on the ground floor) > > I second this. The trigger route is much more maintainable > than the rule > route. IMO what really needs to happen is something more low > level where > there are no DBA visible changes. Triggers also have overhead, > it would > be nice to get a little more bare metal with this. > > I had raised this issue about rules/triggers back then and the > responses seemed to be evenly split as to which ones to use.
Presumably your implementation already uses Triggers for INSERTs though, so why not use triggers for everything? -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: 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
