Re: [GENERAL] INSTEAD rule bug?

Tom Lane wrote:
> DeJuan Jackson <djackson(at)speedfc(dot)com> writes:
> > Or is it simply any conditional rule using UNION/EXCEPT/INTERSECT/...?
>
> Yeah, that's about the size of it :-(. Note though that you could
> probably work around the problem by pushing the UNION etc. down into a
> sub-select:
> SELECT * FROM (SELECT ... UNION ...) foo;
>
> At some point we could look at automatically transforming the query in
> that way, but I'm not planning to worry about it now.

What does the code do now after you changed it? Fail on the UNION
query?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073