| From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Laurette Cisneros <laurette(at)nextbus(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Disabling triggers (was Re: pgsql 7.2.3 crash) |
| Date: | 2002-10-14 04:08:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20021014010721.O20941-100000@hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> I was wondering whether an ALTER TABLE command is really the right way
> to approach this. If we had an ALTER-type command, presumably the
> implication is that its effects would be global to all backends. But
> the uses that I've seen for suspending trigger invocations would be
> happier with a local, temporary setting that only affects the current
> backend. Any thoughts about that?
I may be missing something here, but the only circumstance where i could
see such being useful would be a load of a database ... other then that,
how would overriding triggers be considered a good thing?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-14 04:11:37 | Re: 7.3b2 ?bug? bitfromint4 is not working |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-14 04:04:14 | Disabling triggers (was Re: pgsql 7.2.3 crash) |