Create rule weirdness

If PostgreSQL failed to compile on your computer or you found a bug that
is likely to be specific to one platform then please fill out this form
and e-mail it to pgsql-ports(at)postgresql(dot)org(dot)

To report any other bug, fill out the form below and e-mail it to
pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org(dot)

If you not only found the problem but solved it and generated a patch
then e-mail it to pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org instead. Please use the
command "diff -c" to generate the patch.

You may also enter a bug report at http://www.postgresql.org/ instead of
e-mail-ing this form.

============================================================================
POSTGRESQL BUG REPORT TEMPLATE
============================================================================

Your name : Mike Glover
Your email address : mpg4(at)duluoz(dot)net

System Configuration
---------------------
Architecture (example: Intel Pentium) : i686-pc-linux-gnu

Operating System (example: Linux 2.0.26 ELF) : Linux 2.1.12

PostgreSQL version (example: PostgreSQL-6.5.1): PostgreSQL-6.5.1

Compiler used (example: gcc 2.8.0) : gcc 2.7.2.3

Please enter a FULL description of your problem:
------------------------------------------------

>From the documentation:

there is a current instance (for retrieves, updates and deletes) and a
new instance (for updates and appends).

my example below shows at least one situation where this is not the
case -- a rule on delete seems to create a 'new' class but not a
'current' class.

Please describe a way to repeat the problem. Please try to provide a
concise reproducible example, if at all possible:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(ent_base is an existing table with a column labeled eid, the
do_ent_cleanup function exists)

=>create rule cause_ent_cleanup as on delete to ent_base
do select do_ent_cleanup (current.eid);
ERROR: current: Table does not exist.
=>create rule cause_ent_cleanup as on delete to ent_base
do select do_ent_cleanup (new.eid);
CREATE

(the rule then performs as expected -- I haven't done extensive
testing, however)

If you know how this problem might be fixed, list the solution below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------