On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yes, the semantics of immediate and deferred triggers wouldn't change.
> I'm just suggesting that when the system has a choice of legal firing
> orders, it adopt an "alphabetical order" rule. AFAICS, all it would
> take to implement this is for RelationBuildTriggers to sort the list
> of triggers just after it's read them from pg_trigger and before it
> inserts them into the TriggerDesc structure (ie, about line 638 of
> trigger.c in current sources). The latter insertion is where they
> are divided into categories, so the sorting would end up only affecting
> the ordering within categories.
>
> The interesting question is not that, really, but whether an
> alphabetical-ordering rule will be useful and convenient. I don't
> recall exactly how the system chooses names for triggers that it creates
> --- if the user can't control those at all then this idea may not be
> helpful.
What other than foreign key constraints creates behind the scenes
triggers? The fk trigger names are currently RI_ConstraintTrigger_###.
I don't think there's any way right now to set their names (although
we could change the naming to <constraint name>_### or something like
that).