On 17 February 2012 22:42, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Has anybody stopped to look at the SQL standard for this? In-line
trigger definitions are actually what they intend, IIRC.
this is what i found
On 2014-09-16 13:15:59 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
On 17 February 2012 22:42, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Has anybody stopped to look at the SQL standard for this? In-line
trigger definitions are
On 16 September 2014 13:29, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-09-16 13:15:59 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
On 17 February 2012 22:42, Jaime Casanova ja...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Has anybody stopped to
On 2014-09-16 13:42:22 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
The function can't be the target of CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION.
That *really* sucks. To the point of making the feature useless in my
eyes. That's really something frequently done.
Why not CREATE OR REPLACE TRIGGER? Wouldn't the
On 16 September 2014 13:45, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-09-16 13:42:22 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
The function can't be the target of CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION.
That *really* sucks. To the point of making the feature useless in my
eyes. That's really something
On 2014-09-16 13:54:49 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
On 16 September 2014 13:45, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-09-16 13:42:22 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
The function can't be the target of CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION.
That *really* sucks. To the point of making the
On fre, 2012-02-24 at 13:55 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
By default, a trigger function runs as the table owner, ie it's
implicitly SEC DEF
to the table owner.
Really? That's certainly what I would *want*, but it's not what I've
seen.
Yes, you're right, that was my recollection as
On fre, 2012-02-17 at 16:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
But perhaps SECURITY DEFINER is a common enough need to justify
including in this shorthand form.
According to the SQL standard, trigger actions run in security definer
mode. I would hope that we could go with that by default for inline
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On fre, 2012-02-17 at 16:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
But perhaps SECURITY DEFINER is a common enough need to justify
including in this shorthand form.
According to the SQL standard, trigger actions run in security definer
mode. I would hope that we
On fre, 2012-02-24 at 14:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
(Thinks some more...) Actually, the point of SECURITY DEFINER on a
trigger function is to run as somebody other than the table owner,
to wit the function owner. And with an anonymous function there
couldn't be any other owner. So I guess
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
By default, a trigger function runs as the table owner, ie it's
implicitly SEC DEF
to the table owner.
Really? That's certainly what I would *want*, but it's not what I've
seen.
test=# create user bob;
CREATE ROLE
test=# create user ted;
CREATE ROLE
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
By default, a trigger function runs as the table owner, ie it's
implicitly SEC DEF
to the table owner.
Really? That's certainly what I would *want*, but it's not what I've
On 23 February 2012 07:15, Gianni Ciolli gianni.cio...@2ndquadrant.it wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:43:53AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/17/2012 11:29 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Feb 17, 2012, at 5:22 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
The purpose being to only have a single statement to set
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 08:26:47AM +, Thom Brown wrote:
On 23 February 2012 07:15, Gianni Ciolli gianni.cio...@2ndquadrant.it wrote:
Another complication: anonymous triggers would either have to be
alone, or provide a mechanism to manage a sequence of anonymous
triggers on the same
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:43:53AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/17/2012 11:29 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Feb 17, 2012, at 5:22 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
The purpose being to only have a single statement to set up the
trigger rather than setting up a separate trigger function which will
On Feb 17, 2012, at 5:22 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
The purpose being to only have a single statement to set up the
trigger rather than setting up a separate trigger function which will
unlikely be re-used by other triggers... or is this of dubious
benefit?
+1, though I imagine it would just give
On 02/17/2012 11:29 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Feb 17, 2012, at 5:22 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
The purpose being to only have a single statement to set up the
trigger rather than setting up a separate trigger function which will
unlikely be re-used by other triggers... or is this of dubious
On 17 February 2012 16:29, David E. Wheeler da...@justatheory.com wrote:
On Feb 17, 2012, at 5:22 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
The purpose being to only have a single statement to set up the
trigger rather than setting up a separate trigger function which will
unlikely be re-used by other
On 17 February 2012 16:43, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 02/17/2012 11:29 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Feb 17, 2012, at 5:22 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
The purpose being to only have a single statement to set up the
trigger rather than setting up a separate trigger function
On 02/17/2012 11:46 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
On 17 February 2012 16:43, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 02/17/2012 11:29 AM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Feb 17, 2012, at 5:22 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
The purpose being to only have a single statement to set up the
trigger rather than
On fre, 2012-02-17 at 13:22 +, Thom Brown wrote:
So instead of
CREATE TRIGGER...
EXECUTE PROCEDURE functioname();
you'd have:
CREATE TRIGGER...
DO $$
...
$$;
I had wished for this many times and was about to propose something
similar.
We might wish to review the SQL standard
On 17 February 2012 17:26, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On fre, 2012-02-17 at 13:22 +, Thom Brown wrote:
So instead of
CREATE TRIGGER...
EXECUTE PROCEDURE functioname();
you'd have:
CREATE TRIGGER...
DO $$
...
$$;
I had wished for this many times and was about to
Thom Brown t...@linux.com writes:
And thinking about it, DO is a bit nonsense here, so maybe we'd just
have something like:
CREATE TRIGGER...
AS $$
BEGIN
END;
$$;
i.e. the same as a function.
I like that. How do you tell which language the trigger is written in?
I'm not so sure about
On 17 February 2012 20:40, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Thom Brown t...@linux.com writes:
And thinking about it, DO is a bit nonsense here, so maybe we'd just
have something like:
CREATE TRIGGER...
AS $$
BEGIN
END;
$$;
i.e. the same as a function.
I like that. How
On 02/17/2012 03:58 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
On 17 February 2012 20:40, Dimitri Fontainedimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Thom Brownt...@linux.com writes:
And thinking about it, DO is a bit nonsense here, so maybe we'd just
have something like:
CREATE TRIGGER...
AS $$
BEGIN
END;
$$;
i.e. the
On 17 February 2012 21:07, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote:
On 02/17/2012 03:58 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
On 17 February 2012 20:40, Dimitri Fontainedimi...@2ndquadrant.fr
wrote:
Thom Brownt...@linux.com writes:
And thinking about it, DO is a bit nonsense here, so maybe we'd just
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 02/17/2012 03:58 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
On 17 February 2012 20:40, Dimitri Fontainedimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
I'm not so sure about other function properties (SET, COST, ROWS,
SECURITY DEFINER etc) because applying default and punting users to
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
Has anybody stopped to look at the SQL standard for this? In-line
trigger definitions are actually what they intend, IIRC.
In which language? Do we need to include PL/PSM to be compliant, and
use that by default? In that case we might want to force people
Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
Has anybody stopped to look at the SQL standard for this? In-line
trigger definitions are actually what they intend, IIRC.
In which language? Do we need to include PL/PSM to be compliant, and
use that by
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Has anybody stopped to look at the SQL standard for this? In-line
trigger definitions are actually what they intend, IIRC.
this is what i found there
trigger definition ::=
CREATE TRIGGER trigger name trigger action time
30 matches
Mail list logo
