Joe Conway wrote:
> Andreas Pflug wrote:
>
>> But PostgreSQL may be better than Oracle, don't you think? In the
>> named document,
>
>
> <snip>
>
>> MSSQL2000 still doesn't have row level triggers, and I doubt that
>> 2003 has.
>>
>
> Right, so as you've pointed out, Postgres trigger implementation is at
> least in some ways more flexible than Oracle, and offers row level
> triggers which MSSQL doesn't even have.
>
> All I said was that you're being too harsh by suggesting that
> statement level triggers don't even deserve mention. You are assuming
> that everyone migrating to Postgres will "miss" the MSSQL feature when
> lots of people (in fact, the majority) don't even use MSSQL.
>
> I agree that having the equiv. of MSSQL's "inserted" and "deleted"
> pseudo tables, would be nice, but I wouldn't allow lack thereof to
> denigrate a useful new feature.
>
Hi Joe,
I perfectly understand that you don't like withholding the existence of
statement-level triggers, because they are certainly useful in some
cases. I wasn't aware that Oracle has castrated triggers too... So for
the 7.4 release, there must be taken some effort in documenting what
statement triggers can and what not; chapter 37 is not helpful at the
moment. Otherwise, frustration is pre-programmed, just as I had it when
I was trying to use it.
Regards,
Andreas