Re: What's wrong with triggers?
- From: "onedaywhen" <jamiecollins@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 24 Jan 2006 01:39:26 -0800
Tony Rogerson wrote:
> Aside from the portability stuff there is nothing wrong with them at all.
Tony,
I think Celko describes a widely held position i.e. if there is a
Standard SQL alternative to a trigger (e.g. CHECK, CREATE ASSERTION,
etc) then use it, if your product supports the SQL/PSM then much the
better, etc. I'd wager Celko uses triggers all the time e.g. from
comments such as, 'Now start hiding this in VIEWs with INSTEAD OF
triggers'.
I must respectfully disagree with the comments you have been making
recently, Tony, and say that I do think Celko does operate in the real
world. I deduce that he does not want to advocate using proprietary
features until the equivalent Standard approaches have been discounted.
This is certainly the methodology I use.
Sometimes his brusque approach makes me cringe but more often than not
he hits the sweet spot for me.
Jamie.
--
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: What's wrong with triggers?
- From: --CELKO--
- Re: What's wrong with triggers?
- From: Tony Rogerson
- Re: What's wrong with triggers?
- References:
- What's wrong with triggers?
- From: scubakiz
- Re: What's wrong with triggers?
- From: Tony Rogerson
- What's wrong with triggers?
- Prev by Date: Re: Good list/forum for PostgreSQL?
- Next by Date: Re: What's wrong with triggers?
- Previous by thread: Re: What's wrong with triggers?
- Next by thread: Re: What's wrong with triggers?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|