Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Although we already have macros TRIGGER_FIRED_AFTER/TRIGGER_FIRED_BEFORE
>> that seem to mask the details here, the changes you had to make in
>> contrib illustrate that the macros' callers could still be embedding this
>> basic mistake of testing "!before" when they mean "after" or vice versa.
>> I wonder whether we should intentionally rename the macros to force
>> people to take another look at their logic. �Or is that going too far?
>> Comments anyone?
> I'm less sold on this one.
I'm not sold on it either, just wanted to run it up the flagpole to see
if anyone would salute. For the moment I'm thinking that calling out
the point in the 9.1 release notes should be sufficient. I made an
extra commit to make sure the issue is salient in the commit log.
regards, tom lane