From: | David Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: DO INSTEAD and conditional rules |
Date: | 2005-04-26 15:49:26 |
Message-ID: | bf45b6f35886d5c7066a1bd6ec8e2d8a@kineticode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Apr 25, 2005, at 11:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> (I have been thinking more and more that we should consider a wholesale
> redesign of the rule mechanism, because it sure seems not to answer the
> needs/expectations of a lot of people out there. But I am not talking
> about marginal questions like what INSTEAD means --- it seems to me
> that
> there's some very fundamental disconnect between what the rewriter does
> and what people want. I don't have any specific substitute proposal,
> which is why I've not brought it up...)
I think that people are likely to confuse rules and triggers. The other
issue is that they are not documented in such a way as to make them
simple to understand. But beyond that, although I like Neil's
suggestion better, rules work pretty well for what I need them for--the
ability to INSERT, UPDATE, or DELETE on a view.
Come to my presentation at OSCON this summer to see what I'm doing with
them. :-)
Cheers,
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-26 15:51:38 | Re: [HACKERS] Continue transactions after errors in psql |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-04-26 15:46:45 | Re: [HACKERS] Continue transactions after errors in psql |