Andreas Pflug wrote:
> 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.
I didn't dispute the fact that disabling triggers (without unsupported
hacks) is useful. I did agree with Tom that doing so with "permanent"
commands is dangerous. I think the superuser-only SET variable idea is
the best one I've heard for a way to support this.
Joe
