On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I think the
> right thing here is to replace "before" with a three-valued enum,
> perhaps called "timing", so as to force people to take another look
> at any code that touches the field directly.
+1. That seems much nicer.
> Although we already have macros TRIGGER_FIRED_AFTER/TRIGGER_FIRED_BEFORE
> that seem to mask the details here, the changes you had to make in
> contrib illustrate that the macros' callers could still be embedding this
> basic mistake of testing "!before" when they mean "after" or vice versa.
> I wonder whether we should intentionally rename the macros to force
> people to take another look at their logic. Or is that going too far?
> Comments anyone?
I'm less sold on this one.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
