| From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Deprecating RULES |
| Date: | 2012-10-17 18:06:13 |
| Message-ID: | CAEYLb_Wx4vusAj1j-4cUgHBC-sSCCha8tA3Z3+-75EW1SBP39w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 17 October 2012 18:50, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> I don't know how many times I have to say this: people are not listening.
> Tom has already given a case for it upthread:
>
>
>>> Triggers necessarily operate on a row-at-a-time basis. In theory,
>>> for at least some bulk operations, a rule could greatly outperform
>>> a trigger. It's difficult to walk away from that - unless somebody
>>> can prove that the advantage doesn't ever accrue in practice.
Fair point. I'm just not sure that that is a good enough reason to not
deprecate rules. I mean, if experienced hackers cannot figure out if
that's actually a useful facet of rules, what hope is there for anyone
else?
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-10-17 18:07:04 | Re: Deprecating RULES |
| Previous Message | Michael Nolan | 2012-10-17 18:02:28 | Re: Deprecating RULES |