| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Boxuan Zhai <bxzhai2010(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: MERGE command for inheritance |
| Date: | 2010-08-10 14:03:02 |
| Message-ID: | 1281448982.19111.3.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On tis, 2010-08-10 at 17:38 +0800, Boxuan Zhai wrote:
> I am not sure if inheritance of MERGE is needed by postgres.
Yes, it is.
> PS: for my investigation on the inheritance actions, I find that
> although the children tables are modified by the UPDATE or DELETE
> commands on their ancestor tables, the rules defined on them are not
> activated during the query. Is this the case (I hope I am not asking a
> stupid question)? And, if so, I may ask why we want it to act like
> this.
Your observation is correct. You could probably argue this way or that
about how it should have been designed 20+ years ago, but this is how it
is.
In general, I wouldn't design new functionality on top of rules. Rules
are pretty broken in many ways.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-10 14:05:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Moderator on Committers? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-10 14:00:46 | Re: pg_restore should accept multiple -t switches? |