On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Peter Eisentraut<peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 10:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> If TRIGGER ON UPDATE OF foo_id means whether the value actually
>> changed, then I can skip the check. If TRIGGER ON UPDATE OF foo_id
>> means whether the column was present in the update list, then it
>> doesn't. Perhaps there are some use cases where we can be certain
>> that we only care about whether the value was in the update list, and
>> not whether it was changed, but off the top of my head it seems like
>> 0% of mine would fall into that category.
>
> Yeah, probably. I didn't make this up; I'm just reading the
> standard. ;-)
>
> But of course you can already do what you do, so you don't lose anything
> if it turns out that this proposed feature ends up working the other
> way.
Sure, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense to spend a lot of time
implementing the standard behavior unless someone can provide a
plausible use case. If that means we have to give our non-standard
feature an incompatible syntax or whatever so as not to create
confusion with the "standard" behavior, then let's do that, because it
sounds WAY more useful.
...Robert
