X-Original-To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Received: from spampd.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36098475CE5 for ; Wed, 7 May 2003 15:10:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54DBD475B8E for ; Wed, 7 May 2003 15:10:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mwynhau.demon.co.uk ([193.237.186.96] helo=mainbox.archonet.com) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 19DUJZ-000EhU-0X; Wed, 07 May 2003 20:10:53 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mainbox.archonet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 765EF176B6; Wed, 7 May 2003 20:10:52 +0100 (BST) Received: from client.archonet.com (client.archonet.com [192.168.1.16]) by mainbox.archonet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEBE316EC7; Wed, 7 May 2003 20:10:51 +0100 (BST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" From: Richard Huxton Organization: Archonet Ltd To: "=?iso-8859-2?q?SZ=DBCS?= =?iso-8859-2?q?=20G=E1bor?=" , Subject: Re: "too clever" when creating SQL functions Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 20:10:49 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 References: <010d01c314c1$3ba30950$0a03a8c0@fejleszt2> In-Reply-To: <010d01c314c1$3ba30950$0a03a8c0@fejleszt2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200305072010.49526.dev@archonet.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS snapshot-20020531 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-38.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_01,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_KMAIL autolearn=ham version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) X-Archive-Number: 200305/145 X-Sequence-Number: 13310 On Wednesday 07 May 2003 6:51 pm, SZ=DBCS G=E1bor wrote: > Dear Gurus, > > Please show me to the archives, if you feel like. I have an ugly function > that can't be defined as language SQL, because it gets parsed at > define-time, not run-time. Any ideas, other than making it plpgsql? > > Even better, is there a more elegant way to turn off/on triggers on a (set > of) table(s)? You might want to look at the output of pg_dump - IIRC that disables all yo= ur=20 triggers (fk's etc) and re-enables them at the end. Might be what you're=20 after. --=20 Richard Huxton