From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lj1-f195.google.com (mail-lj1-f195.google.com [209.85.208.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22EE541D0BD for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 14:11:44 +0300 (MSK) Received: by mail-lj1-f195.google.com with SMTP id y3so23570843ljj.6 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 04:11:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 14:11:42 +0300 From: Konstantin Osipov Message-ID: <20191016111142.GA16144@atlas> References: <20191015213405.GB898@tarantool.org> <20191016055725.GB16587@atlas> <20191016110739.GB11847@tarantool.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191016110739.GB11847@tarantool.org> Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [tarantool-patches] [PATCH v1 0/9] schema: rework _trigger space List-Id: Tarantool development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Nikita Pettik Cc: tarantool-patches@freelists.org, tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org * Nikita Pettik [19/10/16 14:08]: > > The reason to store all persistent objects of the same type in the > > same space is that Tarantool is designed as a multiple frontend > > system. I.e. tomorrow there may be another front end, not just Lua > > or SQL, and one doesn't want to have a separate table for each > > front end. > > Let's be objective: how close we are to introduce new language in > Tarantool? Is there any demand for new language at all? it is one of the tenets of the design. Should it be broken now just because it feels like it won't happen? I think it's a way broader question than the scope of this patch. > > If the trigger timing, action type, definer, setuid and other > > semantics is the same, and only the language is different, then > > why duplicate the space? > > The thing is they are not the same. In fact, set of Lua and SQL trigger's > features are quite different. In Lua trigger timing can be one of > on_replace or before_replace, meanwhile in SQL trigger timing is one of > BEFORE/AFTER/INSTEAD replace; In Lua action event is replace, whereas in SQL > it can be INSERT/DELETE/UPDATE; FOR EACH ROW/STATEMENT action in SQL, and > only FOR EACH ROW is available in Lua. Right, so it's different values (today) of properties, but the properties are largely the same. May I want to define a statement-level trigger in Lua in future? Why not? What are the benefits of having a separate table? -- Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia