Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com> writes:
> It also looks like before triggers returning NULL can break them.
Or a BEFORE trigger that overrides the attempted field update.
> I think we'd been worried about the added cost of doing the check when
> the average case doesn't have this problem but we should probably just
> eat it. In practice I think it's one line of code per action function
> (on update set default already does it).
Already does what? I see nothing in there that would override either
triggers or rules...
> Any opinions out there?
I seem to recall some discussions to the effect that having these
updates subject to rules/triggers is not necessarily bad. For example,
if you were using a rule or trigger to log all updates of table B
someplace else, you'd probably be annoyed to find the RI updates
bypassing your logging mechanism.
There's no perfect solution ...
regards, tom lane
