""Karsten Hilbert"" <karsten.hilb...@gmx.net> wrote in message news:20100719182027.123...@gmx.net... >> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:05 AM, Davor J. <dav...@live.com> wrote: >> > It seems no secret that a child table will not fire a trigger defined >> > on >> > it's parent table. Various posts comment on this. But nowhere could I >> find a >> > reason for this. >> >> Do you want your trigger that redirects insert on parent table to the >> proper child table should run on child tables too? > > Well, inheritance is not used for partitioning ONLY. So, yes, for *my* > use cases I would appreciate being able to tell triggers defined on > parent tables to run on child tables when an insert/update/delete > happens on a child table. (We use inheritance for auditing and for > data aggregation.) > > But since I am not in a position to code the necessary infrastructure > I won't complain about the status quo. > > Karsten >
For me Vick's question just proves that inheritance in relational databases is a complex issue. It shows that trigger propagation is not always desired, contrary to what I believed. But I also have to concur with Karsten. Regards, Davor -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
