db=# CREATE FUNCTION schma.tbl_ins_upd() RETURNS TRIGGER AS 'BEGIN
EXECUTE public.mc_init();
EXECUTE public.mc_delete(''mc_key'');
RETURN NEW;
END;' LANGUAGE 'plpgsql';
db=# CREATE FUNCTION schma.tbl_del() RETURNS TRIGGER AS 'BEGIN
EXECUTE public.mc_init();
Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... Better yet, could TRIGGER functions be allowed to
> return nothing (ala VOID)?
> Which would tell the backend to assume that the row wasn't changed and
> proceed with its handling. This is the preferred approach, IMHO... but
> I think is the har
Now that pgmemcache is getting more use, I've heard a couple of groans
regarding the need to have two functions with exactly the same code
body. This is necessary because there is no generic way of handling
NEW/OLD. For example:
[snip] Err... wait, this is a classic case of send first then
f
