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

From Pavel Stehule
Subject Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER?
Date
Msg-id CAFj8pRBHN1ZUFu8ON_yepvuf1TtQDBFAv-ovkOYfYQ+jNChp1A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER?  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER?  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
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: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Checksums, state of play
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: RFC: Making TRUNCATE more "MVCC-safe"