Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of sáb mar 03 23:00:26 -0300 2012: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > > Pavel's patch for CHECK FUNCTION is adding another command besides that > > one, which is CHECK TRIGGER. The idea behind this is that you give it > > the relation to which the trigger is attached in addition to the trigger > > name, and it checks the function being called by that trigger. > > > IMHO having a separate command for this is not warranted. It seems to > > me that we could simply have a variant of CREATE FUNCTION for this; I > > proposed CREATE FUNCTION trigfunc() AS TRIGGER ON tabname. > > You mean "CHECK FUNCTION ..." right?
Yeah, sorry. > In principle the CHECK TRIGGER command could apply more checks than > are possible with the proposed CHECK FUNCTION syntax: in particular, > AFAICS "AS TRIGGER ON tabname" doesn't provide enough info to know > whether the function should expect new and/or old rows to be provided, > nor what it ought to return (which is different for BEFORE/AFTER cases, > STATEMENT cases, etc). We could add all that info to the CHECK FUNCTION > syntax, but there's definitely some merit to defining the check as > occurring against an existing trigger definition instead. Uh! Now that I read this I realize that what you're supposed to give to CHECK TRIGGER is the trigger name, not the function name! In that light, using CHECK FUNCTION for this doesn't make a lot of sense. Okay, CHECK TRIGGER it is. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
