Re: "strange" rule behavior with nextval on new.* fields

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Bugs List <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: "strange" rule behavior with nextval on new.* fields
Date: 2004-11-12 15:04:57
Message-ID: 19593.1100271897@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> writes:
> This comes up often enough that maybe it warrants a "Caveats with
> Rules" section in "The Rule System" chapter and a link to that
> section in the CREATE RULE documentation, as well as mention in the
> FAQ.

Yeah. I have also thought about reorganizing the docs so that triggers
are presented as being simpler than rules (come first, etc). I think
right now the docs actively mislead newbies into choosing rules in cases
where triggers would be much better.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander M. Pravking 2004-11-12 16:24:50 Broken CIDR: no fix in 7.4.6?
Previous Message franciscojavier.solis 2004-11-12 12:28:02 Problem installing postgresql in XP with cygwin