> > FYI, other DBMS systems call them triggers.
>
> I know. And have no serious objections to that, except the personal
> dislike :-)

Well, SQL isn't the best relational language and VHS wasn't the best
videotape system. Let's go with the flow and call them triggers. The
alternative is a lot of unecessary support questions.

Suppose we disallow the use of :old and :new. In that case implementing
database level triggers would not be so hard, I think.

How about DDL triggers? Adding the trigger action would not be so hard,
but deferred work may cause conceptual problems around exactly when the
trigger fires. Not sure here, never studied ddl/dfw in any detail.

How about the ddl for creating database and ddl triggers. Any
conceptual or implementational issues there?

Paul