Re: Rule updates and PQcmdstatus() issue

From: Steve Howe <howe(at)carcass(dot)dhs(dot)org>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Rule updates and PQcmdstatus() issue
Date: 2002-09-10 03:25:48
Message-ID: 7171134999.20020910002548@carcass.dhs.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello Bruce,

Monday, September 9, 2002, 11:13:20 PM, you wrote:

BM> Steve Howe wrote:
>> Because the affected commands are supposed to give you back
>> information on what your INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE commands, not what is
>> making behind the scenes.
>>
>> And it seems that other people in the thread agree with me, please
>> read thread.
>>
>> Since you are probably very familiar with the rules system, why don't
>> you vote on a proposal too, or just suggest yours. Your opinion is
>> very important. I'm not saying I'm the truth owner; I'm just another
>> developer who needs a feature working again.

BM> Jan actually did vote in the first round which appears in TODO.detail.
BM> He voted that if the INSTEAD rule had only _one_ statement, return that,
BM> if not, return nothing.
We still need Tom's word and Hiroshi, since they were the most related
to the subject, and the other developer's opinion... :)

-------------
Best regards,
Steve Howe mailto:howe(at)carcass(dot)dhs(dot)org

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Steve Howe 2002-09-10 03:26:49 Re: Proposal: Solving the "Return proper affected tuple
Previous Message Sean Chittenden 2002-09-10 03:18:38 Re: Optimization levels when compiling PostgreSQL...