From: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>, PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Return of INSTEAD rules |
Date: | 2002-10-04 16:00:53 |
Message-ID: | qgcrpushkpisdpu8n0ivhllbbs0p2haiai@4ax.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 22:21:27 -0400 (EDT), Bruce Momjian
<pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>so I propose we handle
>INSTEAD rules this way: that we return the oid and tuple count of the
>last INSTEAD rule query with a tag matching the main query.
Bruce, this won't work for this example
>> CREATE RULE visible_delete AS -- DELETE rule
>> ON DELETE TO visible
>> DO INSTEAD
>> COUNT UPDATE table3
>> SET deleted = 1
>> WHERE pk = old.pk;
because here we don't have a rule query with a matching tag. Same
applies for
>> CREATE RULE v_update AS -- UPDATE rule
>> ON UPDATE TO v
>> DO INSTEAD NOTHING;
I wrote:
>> One argument against automatically "don't count non-INSTEAD rules and
>> count the last statement in INSTEAD rules"
Seems I introduced a little bit of confusion here by argueing against
something that has never been proposed before. Funny, that this
non-existent proposal is now seriously discussed :-(
Has the idea of extending the syntax to explicitly mark queries as
COUNTed already been rejected? If yes, I cannot help here. If no, I
keep telling you that this approach can emulate most of the other
possible solutions still under discussion.
Bruce wrote:
>If there is more than one matching tag in
>the INSTEAD rule, the user has the option to place the query he wants
>for the return at the end of the rule.
Are you sure this is always possible without unwanted side effects?
Servus
Manfred
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-04 16:01:54 | Re: numeric hierarchy again (was Re: floor function in 7.3b2) |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-10-04 15:56:22 | Re: Threaded Sorting |