On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> One thing that I'm concerned about with this is that it treats a plain
> RETURN in a BEFORE trigger as RETURN NULL, whereas arguably it should be
> an error. I haven't found a good way to handle that yet, but I'll keep
> looking.
I would
Hello Peter
I checked code, and I don't think so this is good.
A design of optional NULL is going to inconsistent syntax.
RETURN (OLD, NEW, NULL, /* nothing */) is not consistent
But my main argument is not intuitive behave of BEFORE triggers after
this change.
When somebody write BEFORE trig
2012/1/2 Peter Eisentraut :
> On mån, 2011-02-28 at 19:07 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> PL/pgSQL trigger functions currently require a value to be returned,
>> even though that value is not used for anything in case of a trigger
>> fired AFTER. I was wondering if we could relax that. It would
On mån, 2011-02-28 at 19:07 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> PL/pgSQL trigger functions currently require a value to be returned,
> even though that value is not used for anything in case of a trigger
> fired AFTER. I was wondering if we could relax that. It would make
> things a bit more robust
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> PL/pgSQL trigger functions currently require a value to be returned,
> even though that value is not used for anything in case of a trigger
> fired AFTER. I was wondering if we could relax that.
I got bit by that just a couple days ago --- I supposed that a trigger
tha
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> PL/pgSQL trigger functions currently require a value to be returned,
> even though that value is not used for anything in case of a trigger
> fired AFTER. I was wondering if we could relax that. It would make
> things a bit more robust
PL/pgSQL trigger functions currently require a value to be returned,
even though that value is not used for anything in case of a trigger
fired AFTER. I was wondering if we could relax that. It would make
things a bit more robust and produce clearer PL/pgSQL code. The
specific case I'm concerned
