On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 03:49:45PM -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> 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?
I think what Hannu was talking about is the idea of functions that
return a RECORD or SETOF RECORD except that the types of all the
columns are fixed. Nothing much to do w/triggers.
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!