Subject: Incomplete compatibility information for triggers

From: Louis-Claude Canon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 21:52:52 +0100

Hello,

the compatibility section of the "create trigger" page 
(http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/sql-createtrigger.html) 
claims that a missing functionality is the ability to define aliases for 
the "old" and "new" rows or tables. If I am understanding this 
correctly, another related missing functionality is that PostgreSQL does 
not allow the old and new tables to be referenced for statement-level 
triggers (i.e., the "OLD TABLE" that contains all the deleted/modified 
rows in case of deletion/update). I think this is also worth noting as 
any workaround for it seems to be more difficult (if possible at all) 
than for the missing alias feature.

Regards,

Louis-Claude Canon

---

From: Josh Kupershmidt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:23:13 -0500

On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Louis-Claude Canon
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/sql-createtrigger.html) claims
> that a missing functionality is the ability to define aliases for the "old"
> and "new" rows or tables. If I am understanding this correctly, another
> related missing functionality is that PostgreSQL does not allow the old and
> new tables to be referenced for statement-level triggers (i.e., the "OLD
> TABLE" that contains all the deleted/modified rows in case of
> deletion/update). I think this is also worth noting as any workaround for it
> seems to be more difficult (if possible at all) than for the missing alias
> feature.

+1, it seems like a useful missing piece from the SQL:2011 standard.
Care to send a documentation patch?

Josh

---

From: Louis-Claude Canon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:19:39 +0100

> Care to send a documentation patch?

Let me know if it requires a second round.

By the way, I can propose another patch regarding the transaction 
isolation relatively to my previous post on pgsql-bugs.

Louis

---

From: Josh Kupershmidt <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 14:47:14 -0700

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Louis-Claude Canon
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> claims

A (belated) +1 for this patch. There were two small typos which I've
fixed in the attached version. You may want to add this patch soon to
the 2013-01 CommitFest so it doesn't get lost.

> By the way, I can propose another patch regarding the transaction isolation
> relatively to my previous post on pgsql-bugs.

If that doc change hasn't been made yet, you may want to post a patch.

Josh

-- 
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email-masked])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 00:30:40 -0500

On Sun, 2013-01-13 at 14:47 -0700, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
> fixed in the attached version.

Committed.