On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:59 +0530, NikhilS wrote:
> Hi,
> > The only problem I have with this is that the shops I know
> with big
> > partitioned tables favor triggers over rules for both
> performance reason and
> > a cleaner implementation. Even with automated rule creation
> this isnt going
> > to change afaics... not to mention we already create our
> rules & triggers
> > automatically, so really this just isn't exciting to me
> (though it may make
> > it easier for people getting in on the ground floor)
>
> I second this. The trigger route is much more maintainable
> than the rule
> route. IMO what really needs to happen is something more low
> level where
> there are no DBA visible changes. Triggers also have overhead,
> it would
> be nice to get a little more bare metal with this.
>
> I had raised this issue about rules/triggers back then and the
> responses seemed to be evenly split as to which ones to use.
Presumably your implementation already uses Triggers for INSERTs though,
so why not use triggers for everything?
-- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
