From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at (Zeugswetter Andreas SARZ) |
Cc: | jwieck(at)debis(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: AW: [HACKERS] triggers, views and rules (not instead) |
Date: | 1998-02-20 19:15:09 |
Message-ID: | 199802201915.OAA06977@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> >
> Ok, to sum it up:
> 1. We need and want the select part of the rewrite rules.
> 2. for the insert/update/delete rules the old instance rules system
> was much more appropriate. TODO: dig up the old code
> and merge it with the current trigger Implementation
> it must be pretty much the wanted functionality (it
> supported sql)
> 3. the CURRENT keyword in the i/u/d rewrite rules is stupid
> and should be disabled
> destroyed and burned in hell
> 4. To stick to the mainstream we should enhance the trigger
> syntax,
> and forget the rule stuff for i/u/d
>
> create trigger passwd_utr
> ..........
> referencing old as o new as n
> for each row (statement, statement, statement, procedure,
> ...... all PL/pgSQL syntax allowed );
> -- with a syntax to modify the new tuple in memory
This all sounds good to me. Let's do it soon. I like the removal of
i/u/d rewrite so we can give people something that will work, and not
have all those gray areas of 'it works here, but not here.'
--
Bruce Momjian
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-02-20 19:16:14 | Re: [HACKERS] group by problem |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-02-20 19:12:46 | Re: [HACKERS] Running pgindent |