Re: Document transition table triggers are not allowed on views/foreign tables

On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 3:22 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ashutosh,
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 12:06 AM Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 4:16 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 4:55 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Another thing I noticed about transition tables is that while we
> > > > prohibit transition tables on views/foreign tables, there is no
> > > > description about that in the user-facing documentation.  So I would
> > > > like to propose to do $SUBJECT in create_trigger.sgml.  Attached is a
> > > > patch for that.
> >
> > I think the restriction should be specified in a manner similar to how
> > restriction on CONSTRAINT option for foreign tables is specified i.e.
> > in " This option is only allowed for an AFTER trigger that is not a
> > constraint trigger; also, if the trigger is an UPDATE trigger, it must
> > not specify a column_name list.". But that sentence is already a bit
> > complex because of ; also, ... part. How about splitting the sentence
> > into two and mentioning restriction like below?
> >
> > "This option is only allowed for an AFTER trigger on tables other than
> > views or foreign tables. The trigger should not be a constraint
> > trigger. If the trigger is an UPDATE trigger, it must not specify a
> > column_name list when using this option."
>
> Good idea!  This might be nitpicking, but one thing I noticed is this
> part of the first sentence: "an AFTER trigger on tables other than
> views or foreign tables".  Like the CONSTRAINT-restrictions
> description above, how about just saying "an AFTER trigger on a plain
> table (not a foreign table)"?  No need to mention views, so I removed
> that.

I was actually going to suggest that, but I wasn't sure why you wanted
to mention "views" explicitly.

> I also changed to singular because that sounds natural.  My
> first language is not English, though.  Other than that the change
> looks good to me.

+1.

-- 
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat