Re: Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: "Steve Howe" <howe(at)carcass(dot)dhs(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected tuple
Date: 2002-09-10 07:31:30
Message-ID: 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA4961E7C@m0114.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> Oh, this is bad news. The problem we have is that rules don't
> distinguish the UPDATE on the underlying tables of the rule from other
> updates that may appear in the query.
>
> If we go with Tom's idea and total just UPDATE's, we will get the right
> answer when there is only one UPDATE in the ruleset.

As long as the rules don't overlap (1 row is handled by 1 instead statement,
another row by a different one), it is ok. Again, you can create "non instead"
rules or triggers for the other work needed.
I am still in favor of not distinguishing the different tags. The dba needs to
take responsibility anyway (as long as we don't autogenerate the rules for simple
cases).

Andreas

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2002-09-10 07:46:09 Re: Optimization levels when compiling PostgreSQL...
Previous Message Karel Zak 2002-09-10 07:27:05 Re: PREPARE code notes