Tom Lane wrote:
> You seem to have also done a fair amount of unrelated hacking around.
> What's the point of removing the distinction between check_ins and
> check_upd functions?
I talked about this in an earlier message to -hackers: check_upd was
actually unused (check_ins was used for both inserts and updates).
> I think that may confuse existing client code
> that looks at the triggers, without really buying much. A possibly
> stronger argument is that if we find down the road that we need
> separate functions again, we'll be in a bit of a sticky place; at
> least if we need it to fix a bug without forcing initdb.
Hmm, I suppose -- if you prefer I can have check_ins called by the
INSERT trigger and check_upd called by the UPDATE trigger, which
probably makes more sense.
-Neil
