Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER?
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRAyvqetWjOe22RqmiDmBrAkjxkdhxq4x_GytqF8Q5_qGQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER?  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER?
List pgsql-hackers
Hello

Robert, please, can you comment to this issue? And other, please. I am
able to fix syntax to any form where we will have agreement.

Regards

Pavel

2012/3/6 Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>:
> Hello
>
>>
>> When I try to look on some multicheck form:
>>
>> a) CHECK FUNCTION ALL ON table_name
>> b) CHECK TRIGGER ALL ON table_name
>>
>> then more natural form is @b (for me). Personally, I can live with
>> one, both or second form, although I prefer CHECK TRIGGER.
>>
>
> I though some time more.
>
> if somebody would to check all custom function, then he can write
>
> CHECK FUNCTION ALL
>
> what about triggers?
>
> CHECK TRIGGER ALL
>
> but if we don't implement CHECK TRIGGER, then this statement will look like
>
> CHECK FUNCTION ALL ON ALL ???
>
> and this is unclean - probably it doesn't mean - check trigger
> function with any table. So this is other argument for CREATE TRIGGER.
>
> Nice a day
>
> Pavel
>
>
>> notes?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Pavel
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> Robert Haas
>>> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
>>> To make changes to your subscription:
>>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dan Ports
Date:
Subject: a slightly stale comment
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement