Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1efwAk-0008EX-TP for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 23:15:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1efwAk-000334-5G for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 23:15:38 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1efw7R-0007WO-H5 for pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 23:12:13 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1efw7O-0007fH-7P for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 23:12:12 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w0SNC1Bg021623; Sun, 28 Jan 2018 18:12:01 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Bruce Momjian cc: Thomas Munro , ian@thepathcentral.com, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org, Andrew Gierth Subject: Re: Trigger behaviour not as stated In-reply-to: <20180128225824.GA5022@momjian.us> References: <20171129193934.27108.30796@wrigleys.postgresql.org> <20180124181008.GK17109@momjian.us> <20180124220701.GP17109@momjian.us> <28238.1517167118@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20180128203402.GB4380@momjian.us> <15634.1517173027@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20180128225824.GA5022@momjian.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Sun, 28 Jan 2018 17:58:24 -0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <21621.1517181121.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 18:12:01 -0500 Message-ID: <21622.1517181121@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Bruce Momjian writes: > Oh, I am sorry. I was focused on the first part of the sentence and > didn't notice your change to the second part. How is this attachment? Seems same as your previous version? regards, tom lane