| From: | David Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: DO INSTEAD and conditional rules |
| Date: | 2005-04-26 20:19:42 |
| Message-ID: | a8c21dce0ade483cf13d0c7b13dbda45@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Apr 26, 2005, at 11:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The problem is that OLD is effectively a macro for the view, and once
> you've deleted one of the rows, that ID is no longer present anywhere
> in
> the view. Sometimes you can work around this by making the join an
> outer join, but that's certainly a kluge.
Yah.
> I don't think it's fixable without a fundamental rethinking of the
> feature.
Well, I'm not to worried about it for my current needs, but I can sure
see how it would be unexpected and really bite someone.
So has anyone else done any rethinking of rules?
Cheers,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2005-04-26 20:23:07 | Re: How to make lazy VACUUM of one table run in several |
| Previous Message | David Wheeler | 2005-04-26 20:17:26 | Re: DO INSTEAD and conditional rules |