Hello Andres,
>> So I have a question: is there a particular reason why arguments were not
>> provided in the first place?
>
> Yea. The existing trigger argument mechanims is extremely odd
> implementation wise - they don't have real datatypes and aren't passed
> via the normal parameter passing mechanism.
Indeed, I can only agree!
> IIRC we discussed this back when it was introduced and decided against
> introducing for now.
>
> I think the whole trigger argument infrastructure, even for normal
> triggers, should be rewritten. After that we could think of adding it
> for event triggers.
Ok. That sound reasonable. Thanks for the answer.
I think that the new method will have to be upward compatible. This
suggest providing TG_ARGV with casted to text arguments. Not necessarily a
big issue.
I've looked into the parser. ISTM that trigger call parameter list could
use a "expr_list", which would have to be evaluated and serialised in
pg_trigger, maybe as ROW does.
--
Fabien.
