From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: RETURNING and DO INSTEAD ... Intentional or not? |
Date: | 2007-09-12 18:51:24 |
Message-ID: | 200709121151.25144.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom,
> Josh, this *is* documented; see the CREATE RULE reference page for full
> details, and there's at least passing references here:
> http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/rules-update.html#RULES-UPD
>ATE-VIEWS
Yeah, it's just hard to find since it's buried in an offhand example in a
subsection which is 5 pages long, and the necessity to match up columns and
data types in order is not clearly explained. I've submitted what I believe
are improvements.
I'll note that we currently prevent adding RETURNING to a *conditional* DO
INSTEAD rule. This means that if we have a conditional DO INSTEAD rule which
inserts into a different table than the final unconditional rule, we'll be
RETURNING wrong or empty values. Mind you, that's a pretty extreme corner
case.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-09-12 20:30:28 | Re: reindexdb hangs |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-09-12 18:40:46 | Re: RETURNING and DO INSTEAD ... Intentional or not? |