From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Deprecating RULES |
Date: | 2012-10-22 12:57:31 |
Message-ID: | 27206.1350910651@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The problems with MERGE are mostly around concurrency, as far as I can
> tell. I can't see why RULEs would have anything to do with it -
> except that I don't see how MERGE can sanely support rules, and even
> if we find a way to make it do that, anyone already using RULEs will
> need to adjust them to support MERGE. I'm not sure I have a horribly
> well-thought-out position on the underlying issue here - I'm kind of
> vacillating back and forth - but I do think one of the problems with
> RULEs is that they are too tied to particular command names. Adding
> any new commands that can select or modify data - be it MERGE, UPSERT,
> or whatever - is going to cause trouble both for implementors and for
> people relying on the feature.
And triggers (or anything else) would be better on that score because ...?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-10-22 13:10:22 | ToDo: KNN Search should to support DISTINCT clasuse? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-10-22 11:53:30 | Re: Deprecating RULES |