Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 15:01:48 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@postgresql.org>,
	pgsql-committers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Fix documentation template for CREATE
 TRIGGER.
Message-ID: <20141011190148.GD21267@momjian.us>
References: <E1WyMAC-0005Fp-FO@gemulon.postgresql.org>
 <1403464789.9081.11.camel@jeff-desktop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1403464789.9081.11.camel@jeff-desktop>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-committers-owner@postgresql.org


Did we ever address this concern?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 12:19:49PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-06-21 at 14:21 +0000, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > Fix documentation template for CREATE TRIGGER.
> > 
> > By using curly braces, the template had specified that one of
> > "NOT DEFERRABLE", "INITIALLY IMMEDIATE", or "INITIALLY DEFERRED"
> > was required on any CREATE TRIGGER statement, which is not
> > accurate.  Change to square brackets makes that optional.
> > 
> > Backpatch to 9.1, where the error was introduced.
> 
> It still doesn't look quite right to me. The new form:
> 
> [ NOT DEFERRABLE | [ DEFERRABLE ] { INITIALLY IMMEDIATE | INITIALLY
> DEFERRED } ]
> 
> says that, if DEFERRABLE is specified, then INITIALLY IMMEDIATE or
> INITIALLY DEFERRED is required. But the following is accepted by the
> server:
> 
>   create constraint trigger mytrigger
>     after insert on dummy_table deferrable
>     for each row execute procedure dummy_trigger();
> 
> (Although the standard doesn't seem to have deferrable triggers, that
> does seem to match the deferrable constraint syntax that is in the
> spec.)
> 
> For that matter, the following is also accepted by the server:
> 
>   create constraint trigger mytrigger
>     after insert on dummy_table initially deferred deferrable
>     for each row execute procedure dummy_trigger();
> 
> That case may be a bug; and regardless I don't think we want to
> document/encourage specifying them in that order. But the first case
> seems reasonable to me.
> 
> Regards,
> 	Jeff Davis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +


-- 
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list (pgsql-committers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers