On Friday 01 December 2000 00:33, Tom Lane wrote:
> The rewriting is done, all right, but what's left afterward still has
> references to the view, because each rule is conditional.  Essentially,
> the rewriter output looks like
>
> 	-- rule 1
> 	if (rule1 condition holds)
> 		-- rule 2 applied to rule1 success case
> 		if (rule2 condition holds)
> 			apply rule 2's query
> 		else
> 			apply rule 1's query
> 	else
> 		-- rule 2 applied to rule1 failure case
> 		if (rule2 condition holds)
> 			apply rule 2's query
> 		else
> 			apply original query
>
> If the system were capable of determining that either rule1 or rule2
> condition will always hold, perhaps it could deduce that the original
> query on the view will never be applied.  However, I doubt that we
> really want to let loose an automated theorem prover on the results
> of every rewrite ...

I think it would be better to move the test further down, to just before we 
actually try to do the update/insert. Maybe into the heap access routines as 
suggested by Andreas.


-- 
Mark Hollomon

In response to

• Re: [HACKERS] Re: Rules with Conditions: Bug, or Misunderstanding at 2000-12-01 05:33:22 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: Re: [SQL] Rules with Conditions: Bug, or Misunderstanding at 2000-12-02 05:18:39 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2000-12-02 05:11:23
	Subject: Re: ALTER FUNCTION problem
Previous:	From: Mark Hollomon	Date: 2000-12-02 02:38:01
	Subject: ALTER FUNCTION problem

pgsql-sql by date

Next:	From: Ross J. Reedstrom	Date: 2000-12-02 03:27:06
	Subject: Re: I can be a BUG?
Previous:	From: Edipo E. F. Melo	Date: 2000-12-01 23:48:44
	Subject: I can be a BUG?