Re: Rule updates and PQcmdstatus() issue

Steve Howe wrote:
>
> Hello Jan,
>
> Monday, September 9, 2002, 11:15:47 AM, you wrote:
>
> JW> So please, "proper behavior" is not allways what your favorite tool
> JW> expects. And just because you cannot "fix" your tool doesn't make that
> JW> behavior any more "proper".
> Do you have any word more appropriate ?
> [...]
> And it looks like *you* overhauled the query rewrite rule system, so
> what we are talking is something that must have passed through you. So
> instead of offending me, your "proper" behavior would be try to help
> and suggest a solution for the problem, as other developers are doing.

See, and exactly here lies the problem. Indeed, I spent about 3 months
of my spare time back in 95 or so to fix it, after I spent many more
months over years to get familiar with the internals.

Now, instead of even trying to spend some serious amount of time
yourself, you give some vague hints about the functionality that might
make your problems disappear, name that a proposal and expect someone
else to do what you need for free. This is not exactly how open source
works.

We should surely keep this on a much more technical level and avoid any
personal offendings. To do so, please explain to me why you think that
triggers and constraints are out of focus here? What is the difference
between a trigger, a rule and an instead rule from a business process
oriented point of view? I think there is none at all. They are just
different techniques to do one and the same, implement business logic in
the database system.

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #