Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Re: [SQL] Rules with Conditions: Bug, or Misunderstanding

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: mhh(at)mindspring(dot)com
Cc: "Joel Burton" <jburton(at)scw(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: [SQL] Rules with Conditions: Bug, or Misunderstanding
Date: 2000-12-02 05:18:39
Message-ID: 16036.975734319@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-sql
Mark Hollomon <mhh(at)mindspring(dot)com> writes:
> 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.

I'm worried about whether it'll be practical to generate a good error
message from that low a level.

Looking at it from the DBA's viewpoint rather than implementation
details, I haven't seen a good reason *why* we should support
conditional rules for views, as opposed to an unconditional rule with
multiple actions.  Seems to me that writing independent rules that you
hope will cover all cases is a great way to build an unreliable system.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2000-12-02 16:42:38
Subject: Re: beta testing version
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-12-02 05:11:23
Subject: Re: ALTER FUNCTION problem

pgsql-sql by date

Next:From: Roberto MelloDate: 2000-12-02 06:09:04
Subject: Re: I can be a BUG?
Previous:From: Ross J. ReedstromDate: 2000-12-02 03:27:06
Subject: Re: I can be a BUG?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group