From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Deprecating RULES |
Date: | 2012-10-14 08:30:48 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMKFA43+fTMZk4LXPnke6or3z1mrOKOhsP5MSUxFqkF+MA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12 October 2012 19:48, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> AFAICS all RULEs can be re-expressed as Triggers or Views.
>
> This is a bizarre discussion. Firstly this isn't even close to true.
> The whole source of people's discontentment is that triggers are *not*
> equivalent to rules. If they were then they wouldn't be so upset.
This may be a confusion on the point of equivalence; clearly the
features work differently.
I'm not aware of any rule that can't be rewritten as a trigger or a
view. Please can anyone show me some examples of those?
Assuming examples exist, do we think that is wide enough to be
considered a useful feature, given the other downsides of rules such
as not abiding by COPY - which causes data corruption for those who
thought rules would always be obeyed.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2012-10-14 09:04:01 | Re: Successor of MD5 authentication, let's use SCRAM |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-10-14 08:19:27 | Re: tuplesort memory usage: grow_memtuples |