On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:50:13AM +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> ?hel kenal p?eval (p?hap?ev, 23. jaanuar 2005, 15:49-0600), kirjutas Jim
> C. Nasby:
> > Sorry if this is old, but I couldn't find it in the archives...
> >
> > How difficult would it be to provide a means to define a trigger in one
> > statement? Something like a combination of CREATE TRIGGER and CREATE
> > FUNCTION? Being able to define them seperately is awesome for generic
> > cases where you can use one function for a bunch of different tables,
> > but it's a pain in the cases where you need a unique trigger for one
> > table.
>
> The same is true for the need to define RETURN TYPE of a function
> separately from the function.
>
> So: How difficult would it be to provide a means to define a function
> and its return type in one statement?
I'm sorry, I must be missing something... if you're defining a trigger
without seperately defining a function for it, why do you need to worry
about the return type of anything?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"