Re: INSERT a number in a column based on other columns OLD INSERTs - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Albe Laurenz
Subject Re: INSERT a number in a column based on other columns OLD INSERTs
Date
Msg-id A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B50F66F54@ntex2010a.host.magwien.gv.at
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: INSERT a number in a column based on other columns OLD INSERTs  (Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>)
List pgsql-general
Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 06/20/2015 12:41 PM, Charles Clavadetscher wrote:
>> I just made a short test with the code provided. As Bill mentioned the
>> moment when the trigger is fired is essential.
>> I made a test with both before (worked) and after (did not work because
>> the row was already inserted and the returned new row is ignored).
>>
>> The assignment (= or :=) does not seem to play a role, but the correct
>> version is as mentioned :=
> 
> Yea, I can't seem to remember this part of the docs:
> 
> " Equal (=) can be used instead of PL/SQL-compliant :=."

This was discussed on -hackers a while ago:

http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/52EF20B2E3209443BC37736D00C3C1380876BDC7@EXADV1.host.magwien.gv.at#52EF20B2E3209443BC37736D00C3C1380876BDC7@EXADV1.host.magwien.gv.at

It's a rather long and rambling thread, but what I got from it
was that "=" for assignments is something that just works by accident,
is discouraged and left alive only to avoid breaking code that uses it.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: CLOG read problem after pg_basebackup
Next
From: Albe Laurenz
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgresql 9.2 has standby server lost data?