From: | Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Michael Alan Dorman <mdorman(at)debian(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Queries using rules show no rows modified? |
Date: | 2002-05-10 10:19:16 |
Message-ID: | 200205101019.g4AAJGD03410@saturn.janwieck.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Of cource it is nice to have a complete solution
> > immediately but it doesn't seem easy. My patch is
> > only a makeshift solution but fixes the most
> > siginificant case(typical updatable views).
>
> I would like to devise a complete solution *before* we consider
> installing makeshift solutions (which will institutionalize wrong
> behavior).
>
> There seems to be some feeling here that in the presence of rewrites
> you only want to know that "something happened". Are you suggesting
> that the returned tuple count should be the sum of all counts from
> insert, update, and delete actions that happened as a result of the
> query? We could certainly implement that, but it does not seem like
> a good idea to me.
IMHO the answer should only be a number if the rewritten
querytree list consists of one query of the same command
type. everything else has to lead into "unknown".
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Enke, Michael | 2002-05-10 10:27:45 | Re: Bug #659: lower()/upper() bug on ->multibyte<- DB |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2002-05-10 10:12:47 | Re: the parsing of parameters |