| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Deprecating non-select rules (was Re: Last gasp) |
| Date: | 2012-04-10 13:46:45 |
| Message-ID: | 28765.1334065605@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Here is what I know and what comes to my mind right now:
> 1. anything but INSTEAD rules are unsafe
How so? I agree that volatile functions are problematic, but unless
there's one of those in the picture I think rules work pretty much as
documented.
> 3. the snapshots behaviour of an expanded statement is a bit confusing if it
> contains multiple statements which causes problems with the rather frequent
> attempts to build rules with upsert'is behaviour
Again, not sure what you're complaining about here.
> A very trivial, seemingly innocuous, but totally broken usage of rules:
The problem illustrated here is all down to nextval() being volatile,
no?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2012-04-10 13:48:43 | Re: [JDBC] Regarding GSoc Application |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-04-10 13:42:05 | Re: [JDBC] Regarding GSoc Application |