Joe Conway wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>
>>> As an implementation issue, I wonder why these things are hacking
>>> permanent on-disk data structures anyway, when what is wanted is only a
>>> temporary suspension of triggers/rules within a single backend. Some
>>> kind of superuser-only SET variable might be a better idea. It'd
>>> not be
>>> hard to implement, and it'd be much safer to use since failures
>>> wouldn't
>>> leave you with bogus catalog contents.
>>
>>
>> I believe oracle and mssql have ALTER TABLE/DISABLE TRIGGER style
>> statements...
>
>
> Oracle does for sure, but I can tell you that I have seen people
> bitten by triggers inadvertantly left disabled before...I think Tom
> has a good point.
Might be, but disabled triggers are not only useful when restoring a
database. We need this, and supporting this without hacking would be
helpful.
Regards,
Andreas
