Re: Return of INSTEAD rules

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Return of INSTEAD rules
Date: 2002-10-04 04:53:15
Message-ID: 17533.1033707195@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I am confused how yours differs from mine. I don't see how the last
> matching tagged query would not be from an INSTEAD rule.

You could have both INSTEAD and non-INSTEAD rules firing for the same
original query. If the alphabetically-last rule is a non-INSTEAD rule,
then there's a difference.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oliver Elphick 2002-10-04 05:03:13 Re: [SQL] [GENERAL] CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-10-04 04:50:41 Re: Potential Large Performance Gain in WAL synching