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
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 |