From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Deprecating RULES |
Date: | 2012-10-17 23:02:50 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nML-k-rVewZEfpCPOYpBP7+HkXRtw9gnAEJPRfRve4VHzA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 17 October 2012 23:24, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> I fact, I'll go further and say that I believe we will be deprecating
> RULEs eventually. It's merely a question of how long that will take and
> what we need to document, announce and implement before then.
>
> I would tend to say "well, they're not hurting anyone, why not keep
> them?" Except that we're gathering an increasing number of features
> (RETURNING, FDWs, CTEs, Command triggers) which don't work well together
> with RULEs. That puts us in danger of turning into MySQL ("Sorry, you
> can't use Full Text Search with transactions"), which is not a direction
> we want to go in.
I don't really understand. We *are* already in the position you say we
don't want to go towards. It's not a danger, its a current reality.
So what do we do? I've got the doc changes now. Let's agree the rest
of the plan...
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-10-17 23:06:38 | Re: Bugs in planner's equivalence-class processing |
Previous Message | ichbinrene | 2012-10-17 22:55:03 | Re: BUG #7521: Cannot disable WAL log while using pg_dump |