Re: AW: [HACKERS] triggers, views and rules (not instead)

Zeugswetter Andreas SARZ wrote:
> Ok, to sum it up:
> 1. We need and want the select part of the rewrite rules.

Agreed.

> 2. for the insert/update/delete rules the old instance rules system
> was much more appropriate. TODO: dig up the old code
> and merge it with the current trigger Implementation
> it must be pretty much the wanted functionality (it
> supported sql)

??? Old instance rules system was removed by Jolly & Andrew and so
it never supported SQL. I hope that Jan will give us PL/pgSQL soon
and it will be used for triggers, without changing current trigger
implementation...

> 3. the CURRENT keyword in the i/u/d rewrite rules is stupid
> and should be disabled, destroyed and burned in hell

Agreed, if standard hasn't it. I know that OLD & NEW are in standard,
for triggers atleast.

> 4. To stick to the mainstream we should enhance the trigger
> syntax, and forget the rule stuff for i/u/d

Yes. Statement level triggers give the same functionality as rewrite
i/u/d rules. We could let them to return something special to skip
user' i/u/d itself, isn't it the same as INSTEAD ?

Vadim