On Sat, Jul 26, 2025 at 4:59 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 7:59 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 3:22 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 12:06 AM Ashutosh Bapat
> > > <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 4:16 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 4:55 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Another thing I noticed about transition tables is that while we
> > > > > > prohibit transition tables on views/foreign tables, there is no
> > > > > > description about that in the user-facing documentation. So I would
> > > > > > like to propose to do $SUBJECT in create_trigger.sgml. Attached is a
> > > > > > patch for that.
> > > >
> > > > I think the restriction should be specified in a manner similar to how
> > > > restriction on CONSTRAINT option for foreign tables is specified i.e.
> > > > in " This option is only allowed for an AFTER trigger that is not a
> > > > constraint trigger; also, if the trigger is an UPDATE trigger, it must
> > > > not specify a column_name list.". But that sentence is already a bit
> > > > complex because of ; also, ... part. How about splitting the sentence
> > > > into two and mentioning restriction like below?
> > > >
> > > > "This option is only allowed for an AFTER trigger on tables other than
> > > > views or foreign tables. The trigger should not be a constraint
> > > > trigger. If the trigger is an UPDATE trigger, it must not specify a
> > > > column_name list when using this option."
> > >
> > > Good idea! This might be nitpicking, but one thing I noticed is this
> > > part of the first sentence: "an AFTER trigger on tables other than
> > > views or foreign tables". Like the CONSTRAINT-restrictions
> > > description above, how about just saying "an AFTER trigger on a plain
> > > table (not a foreign table)"? No need to mention views, so I removed
> > > that.
> >
> > I was actually going to suggest that, but I wasn't sure why you wanted
> > to mention "views" explicitly.
> >
> > > I also changed to singular because that sounds natural. My
> > > first language is not English, though. Other than that the change
> > > looks good to me.
> >
> > +1.
>
> Cool! I updated the patch as above. I will push this version.
LGTM.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
