On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> wrote:
> That seems a lot cleaner than the proposal on the Wiki page. If we
> go that route, it makes sense to fire the BEFORE INSERT triggers
> before attempting the insert and then fire BEFORE UPDATE triggers
> before attempting the UPDATE. If either succeeds, I think we
> should fire the corresponding AFTER triggers. We already allow a
> BEFORE triggers to run and then omit the triggering operation
> without an error, so I don't see that as a problem. This makes a
> lot more sense to me than attempting to add a new UPSERT trigger
> type.
You realize that that's exactly what my patch does, right?
AFAICT the only confusion that my patch has is with statement-level
triggers, as discussed on the Wiki page. I think that the row-level
trigger behavior is fine; a lot more thought has gone into it.
--
Peter Geoghegan
