Re: [HACKERS] Triggers on system tables

2004-04-20 Thread Bruce Momjian
Added to TODO: * Allow AFTER triggers on system tables --- Gavin Sherry wrote: > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Do you have an example at hand of a system

Re: [HACKERS] Triggers on system tables

2004-02-11 Thread Tom Lane
Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Do you have an example at hand of a system function which will face this > problem so that I can see what is involved? Mmm ... try CREATE TABLE with foreign keys. IIRC the basic table is created and then we do ALTER TABLE ADD FOREIGN KEY.

Re: [HACKERS] Triggers on system tables

2004-02-11 Thread Gavin Sherry
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Do you have an example at hand of a system function which will face this > > problem so that I can see what is involved? > > Mmm ... try CREATE TABLE with foreign keys. IIRC the basic table is > created and then w

Re: [HACKERS] Triggers on system tables

2004-02-11 Thread Gavin Sherry
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > My idea is to provide a generic interface which is called inside > > ProcessUtility() after all other functions are called for the particular > > node we're handling. The nodetag itself will be passed to this gener

Re: [HACKERS] Triggers on system tables

2004-02-11 Thread Tom Lane
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yes, the internal calls from one command to another make this tricky -- > but the return Tag is set very early for the statement. Could the Before > trigger for system commands (CREATE, ALTER, etc.) not be kicked of in > the same area as the tag is set? At

Re: [HACKERS] Triggers on system tables

2004-02-11 Thread Tom Lane
Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My idea is to provide a generic interface which is called inside > ProcessUtility() after all other functions are called for the particular > node we're handling. The nodetag itself will be passed to this generic > function, the function will map nodetag t

Re: [HACKERS] Triggers on system tables

2004-02-11 Thread Rod Taylor
On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 22:30, Tom Lane wrote: > Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > There have been a few discussions about triggers on system tables in > > the past and the problems with such triggers seem to be: > > I think the killer problem is that we couldn't allow triggers on system

Re: [HACKERS] Triggers on system tables

2004-02-11 Thread Gavin Sherry
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > There have been a few discussions about triggers on system tables in > > the past and the problems with such triggers seem to be: > > I think the killer problem is that we couldn't allow triggers on system > tables

Re: [HACKERS] Triggers on system tables

2004-02-11 Thread Tom Lane
Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There have been a few discussions about triggers on system tables in > the past and the problems with such triggers seem to be: I think the killer problem is that we couldn't allow triggers on system tables to do very much. By definition, the database is

Re: [HACKERS] Triggers on system tables

2004-02-11 Thread Gavin Sherry
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Gavin Sherry wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been thinking about triggers on system tables. The motivation for > this is to allow for better interaction between the system and interfaces. > For example, interfaces could store database meta data (list of tables) > and have the cache