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

Re: [GENERAL] INSTEAD rule bug?

From: DeJuan Jackson <djackson(at)speedfc(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] INSTEAD rule bug?
Date: 2003-07-21 18:11:18
Message-ID: 3F1C2CC6.1060706@speedfc.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-general
Can we define the actual problem?
Does it have to do with NEW and OLD with UNIONS?
  Or is it simply any conditional rule using UNION/EXCEPT/INTERSECT/...?

I ask because I'm confused by Tom's examples of failures.

Tom Lane wrote:

>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
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
>  
>

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Barry LindDate: 2003-07-21 18:55:59
Subject: Re: Timestamp problem
Previous:From: Stephan SzaboDate: 2003-07-21 17:33:46
Subject: Re: deadlock_timeout and pg_ctl reload

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Philip GreerDate: 2003-07-21 18:51:12
Subject: Re: Why does it not use the index?
Previous:From: Stephan SzaboDate: 2003-07-21 18:00:56
Subject: Re: Why does it not use the index?

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