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

Re: [GENERAL] INSTEAD rule bug?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dmitry Tkach <dmitry(at)openratings(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] INSTEAD rule bug?
Date: 2003-07-16 14:48:35
Message-ID: 18246.1058366915@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-general
Dmitry Tkach <dmitry(at)openratings(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Dmitry Tkach <dmitry(at)openratings(dot)com> writes:
>>> It would have saved a lot of trouble if it just complained about that 
>>> union thing right away and refuse to create the rule...
>> 
>> That's what happens in CVS tip.
>> 
> I thought you said it was only complaining about references to new and 
> old, not about *any* union clause...

I don't see a need to reject "any" union clause.  AFAIK the cases that
don't work are just the ones where NEW or OLD are referenced.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2003-07-16 16:06:44
Subject: Vacuum going -D; crash or just impatience?
Previous:From: Dmitry TkachDate: 2003-07-16 14:41:41
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] INSTEAD rule bug?

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Annabelle DesboisDate: 2003-07-16 15:35:29
Subject: Transactions
Previous:From: Dmitry TkachDate: 2003-07-16 14:41:41
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] INSTEAD rule bug?

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