Tom Lane wrote:
>
> ISTM that in most cases where this is a serious issue, the trigger
> functions are doing the *same* thing to different tables. Not just
> textually the same, but datatype-wise the same. So I'm not sure I
> believe that we need to be able to "switch out types". Maybe it would
> work to devise a notation that allows fetching or storing a field that
> has a runtime-determined name, but prespecifies the field type.
> Actually only the "fetch" end of it is an issue, since when storing the
> field datatype can be inferred from the expression you're trying to
> assign to the field.
>
>
>
That's exactly the sort of thing I had in mind. I wasn't talking about
loosening the type system. Classic case: you want to set/update a
timestamp field in the NEW record, but it might not be called the same
thing on each table, so you pass the field name as a trigger argument.
cheers
andrew
