From: | "Jaime Casanova" <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Pgsql Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: insert/update/delete returning and rules |
Date: | 2006-08-15 20:13:25 |
Message-ID: | c2d9e70e0608151313x4b9f1a55t29eb571dff5fb3bb@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/15/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Jaime Casanova" <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I'm doing some tests of Bernd's updatable views patch and found
> > something interesting about the RETURNING behavior
> > ...
> > but if i insert using the rules the returning clause is ignored
> > testing_uv=# insert into v_bar values (3), (4) returning *;
> > INSERT 0 2
>
> What are you testing exactly? I think this recent fix might be
> relevant:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2006-08/msg00299.php
>
i have tested again against current HEAD... what i do is to create a
table and then a view against that table... then the rules... you can
use the exact case i posted earlier...
then the insert into view (view + rules defined on it) returning will
not have the same behavior that insert into table...
--
regards,
Jaime Casanova
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs and the universe trying
to produce bigger and better idiots.
So far, the universe is winning."
Richard Cook
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-15 20:33:27 | Re: insert/update/delete returning and rules |
Previous Message | korryd@enterprisedb.com | 2006-08-15 20:12:33 | Re: [PATCHES] PL instrumentation plugin and Rendezvous variable |