| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrzej Barszcz <abusinf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: views |
| Date: | 2017-12-06 17:04:12 |
| Message-ID: | 24629.1512579852@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrzej Barszcz <abusinf(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I would be happy when checkRuleResultList in rewriteDefine.c lost so strict
> conditions for returning clause. Are there any reasons to have such
> restriction for views ?
Uh, so that the results of a query that invokes the rule are well-defined?
If you think that for your application, it's okay for the RETURNING rule
to not bother providing useful data for some columns, you could just have
it return nulls for those. But I don't think it's appropriate for the
system itself to make a value judgement like that. If the columns don't
match up, it could very well be user error, and we should report that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-06 17:06:31 | Re: [HACKERS] parallel.c oblivion of worker-startup failures |
| Previous Message | Adam Brusselback | 2017-12-06 17:02:41 | Re: Postgres with pthread |