Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Adam Sjøgren wrote:
>> Enclosed is a tiny patch for plperl that puts the schema-name of the
>> current table in $_TD, so triggers can access tables using
>> schemaname.tablename, for instance like so:
> This seems like a good idea, but we should probably make analogous
> changes for plpgsql, pltcl and plpython. Having different trigger data
> available in some of these doesn't seem like a good idea.
Yeah. I'm also a little disturbed by using "nspname" which is an
entirely internal name; plus it's a bit unclear *which* schema it's
supposed to be. (One might think it's the schema the trigger function
is in, for instance.) Somebody established a bad precedent by using
"relname" for the table name.
Maybe we should use field names like "table_name" and "table_schema".
"relname" could be kept around for awhile but deprecated as a duplicate
of "table_name".
Or if that seems too messy, keep "relname" but use "relschema" as the
new field.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
