On 8/24/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> writes:
> > While working on Alvaro's suggestions to fix the code i got the opinion
> > that we need to reject any attempts to name a user defined rule
> > as
> > "_INSERT"
> > "_NOTHING_INSERT"
> > "_DELETE"
> > "_NOTHING_DELETE"
> > "_UPDATE"
> > "_NOTHING_UPDATE"
> If the code is dependent on recognizing names to know what it's doing,
> then I'd say you have a fundamentally broken approach. Consider adding
> a flag column to pg_rewrite to distinguish these rules, instead.
Actually the code delete implicit rules based on a field added to
pg_rewrite but that catalog has a unique index on ev_class, rulename:
"pg_rewrite_rel_rulename_index" UNIQUE, btree (ev_class, rulename)
i guess bernd's comment is about this index giving an error if we try
to insert the new rule with the same name on the same event...
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs and the universe trying
to produce bigger and better idiots.
So far, the universe is winning."
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner||Date: 2006-08-24 16:34:58|
|Subject: tsvector/tsearch equality and/or portability issue issue ?|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2006-08-24 15:55:56|
|Subject: Re: invalid byte sequence ?|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Bernd Helmle||Date: 2006-08-24 18:49:45|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Updatable views |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-08-24 15:00:45|
|Subject: Re: Updatable views |