Re: minimal update
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: minimal update |
Дата | |
Msg-id | EBBA1874-C593-4602-AB4E-6BE57C4B2E67@hagander.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: minimal update (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: minimal update
Re: minimal update Re: minimal update |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 20 okt 2008, at 16.51, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: > > > Magnus Hagander wrote: >> Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >>> Tom Lane wrote: >>> >>>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: >>>> >>>>> OK. Where would be a good place to put the code? Maybe a new file >>>>> src/backend/utils/adt/trigger_utils.c ? >>>>> >>>> I thought the plan was to make it a contrib module. >>>> >>>> >>> Well, previous discussion did mention catalog entries, which would >>> suggest otherwise, but I can do it as a contrib module if that's the >>> consensus. >>> >> >> What would be the actual reason to put it in contrib and not core? >> Are >> there any "dangers" by having it there? Or is it "just a hack" and >> not a >> "real solution"? >> >> >> > > No, it's not just a hack. It's very close to what we'd probably do > if we built the facility right into the language, although it does > involve the overhead of calling the trigger. However, it performs > reasonably well - not surprising since the guts of it is just a > memcmp() call. > In that case, why not put the trigger in core so people can use it easily? /magnus
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: