| From: | David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: infinite recursion detected in rules for relation |
| Date: | 2015-02-13 15:45:12 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwa8KWqwmVAVQJV+y=dAucNeL70FH7DAMjvg31fc7D+P=A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 8:24 AM, pinker [via PostgreSQL] <
ml-node+s1045698n5837867h1(at)n5(dot)nabble(dot)com> wrote:
> Ok, but in this particular case I don't see any caveats
You mean other than the infinite recursion, right?
and think that could be classic case for rule to be used.
> If it is "almost never the correct solution" why rules still exists at
> all?
>
Backward compatibility, the "almost", and the fact that views use rules
as an implementation mechanism.
David J.
--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.nabble.com/infinite-recursion-detected-in-rules-for-relation-tp5837697p5837871.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vick Khera | 2015-02-13 16:12:13 | Re: What's a reasonable maximum number for table partitions? |
| Previous Message | pinker | 2015-02-13 15:24:04 | Re: infinite recursion detected in rules for relation |