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

• Re: Re: [SQL] Rules with Conditions: Bug, or Misunderstanding at 2000-12-02 02:47:51 from Mark Hollomon

pgsql-hackers by date

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

pgsql-sql by date

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