Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> What's the point of removing the distinction between check_ins and
>> check_upd functions?
> I talked about this in an earlier message to -hackers: check_upd was
> actually unused (check_ins was used for both inserts and updates).
Hm, guess I missed (or forgot) that message.
> Hmm, I suppose -- if you prefer I can have check_ins called by the
> INSERT trigger and check_upd called by the UPDATE trigger, which
> probably makes more sense.
Yeah ... I thought it was doing that already.
regards, tom lane