Jan, can you handle this TODO item?
* Evaluate INSERT rules at end of query, rather than beginning
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Is the INSERT rule re-ordering mentioned a TODO item?
> Darn if I know. I threw the thought out for discussion, but didn't
> see any comments. I'm not in a hurry to change it, unless there's
> consensus that we should.
> regards, tom lane
> >> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >>>> I thought an INSERT rule with an UPDATE action would work on the same
> >>>> table, but that fails. Seems the rule is firing before the INSERT
> >>>> happens.
> >> Yes, a trigger is the right way to do surgery on a tuple before it is
> >> stored. Rules are good for generating additional SQL queries that will
> >> insert/update/delete other tuples (usually, but not necessarily, in
> >> other tables). Even if it worked, a rule would be a horribly
> >> inefficient way to handle modification of the about-to-be-inserted
> >> tuple, because (being an independent query) it'd have to scan the table
> >> to find the tuple you are talking about!
> >> The reason the additional queries are done before the original command
> >> is explained thus in the source code:
> >> * The original query is appended last if not instead
> >> * because update and delete rule actions might not do
> >> * anything if they are invoked after the update or
> >> * delete is performed. The command counter increment
> >> * between the query execution makes the deleted (and
> >> * maybe the updated) tuples disappear so the scans
> >> * for them in the rule actions cannot find them.
> >> This seems to make sense for UPDATE/DELETE, but I wonder whether
> >> the ordering should be different for the INSERT case: perhaps it
> >> should be original-query-first in that case.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-06-29 20:25:56|
|Subject: Re: functions returning sets |
|Previous:||From: Alex Pilosov||Date: 2001-06-29 18:46:40|
|Subject: functions returning sets|
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Micah Yoder||Date: 2001-06-29 21:26:08|
|Subject: Re: Re: useability of apache, PHP, Postgres for real business apps|
|Previous:||From: mike||Date: 2001-06-29 19:31:39|
|Subject: multibyte tables|