From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Deprecating RULES |
Date: | 2012-10-19 21:03:56 |
Message-ID: | 5081C03C.40102@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> That's a pretty neat one-liner. However... in my view, the real cost
> of rules is that they are hard to support as we add new features to
> SQL. I believe we already decided to punt on making them work with
> CTEs... and maybe one other case? I don't really remember the details
> any more, but presumably this will come up again with MERGE, and
> perhaps other cases...
Unless the easiest way to implement MERGE is to extend RULEs.
Actually, I found myself wondering about RULEs and FDWs, for that
matter. There's not much synergy there now, but I can imagine RULEs
being used to do rewriting for funkier FDW setups, which would be hard
to do with TRIGGERs.
For example, imagine you have a series of CSV FDWs which relate to
segments of a postgres log. You want to query them like they were one
table. How would you use triggers to do that?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-10-19 21:08:18 | Re: [PATCH] Support for Array ELEMENT Foreign Keys |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-10-19 20:56:22 | Re: [PATCH] Support for Array ELEMENT Foreign Keys |