Re: Rule updates and PQcmdstatus() issue

Hello Jan,

Monday, September 9, 2002, 4:56:04 PM, you wrote:

JW> Steve Howe wrote:
>>
>> Hello Jan,
>>
>> Monday, September 9, 2002, 11:15:47 AM, you wrote:
>>
>> JW> So please, "proper behavior" is not allways what your favorite tool
>> JW> expects. And just because you cannot "fix" your tool doesn't make that
>> JW> behavior any more "proper".
>> Do you have any word more appropriate ?
>> [...]
>> And it looks like *you* overhauled the query rewrite rule system, so
>> what we are talking is something that must have passed through you. So
>> instead of offending me, your "proper" behavior would be try to help
>> and suggest a solution for the problem, as other developers are doing.

JW> See, and exactly here lies the problem. Indeed, I spent about 3 months
JW> of my spare time back in 95 or so to fix it, after I spent many more
JW> months over years to get familiar with the internals.

JW> Now, instead of even trying to spend some serious amount of time
JW> yourself, you give some vague hints about the functionality that might
JW> make your problems disappear, name that a proposal and expect someone
JW> else to do what you need for free. This is not exactly how open source
JW> works.
As I told you, this would demand weeks and I just don't have time to
do it. Other developers offered to make a fix and asked me to do that
proposal. And so I did.
It's sad that just you don't seem to be trying to help in
any way. Other developers had considered the proposal and are actually
voting and giving constructive ideas on the subject.

JW> We should surely keep this on a much more technical level and avoid any
JW> personal offendings. To do so, please explain to me why you think that
JW> triggers and constraints are out of focus here? What is the difference
JW> between a trigger, a rule and an instead rule from a business process
JW> oriented point of view? I think there is none at all. They are just
JW> different techniques to do one and the same, implement business logic in
JW> the database system.
Because the affected commands are supposed to give you back
information on what your INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE commands, not what is
making behind the scenes.

And it seems that other people in the thread agree with me, please
read thread.

Since you are probably very familiar with the rules system, why don't
you vote on a proposal too, or just suggest yours. Your opinion is
very important. I'm not saying I'm the truth owner; I'm just another
developer who needs a feature working again.

Thank you.

-------------
Best regards,
Steve Howe mailto:howe(at)carcass(dot)dhs(dot)org