Re: [HACKERS] trouble with rules

> > > > can somebody see this too?
> > > >
> > > > create table t1(i1 int4);
> > > > create table t2(i1 int4);
> > > > create table t3(i2 int4);
> > > >
> > > > test=> create rule rm_t1 as on delete to t1
> > > > test-> do ( delete from t2 where old.i1 = i1;
> > > > test-> delete from t3 where old.i1 = i2;);
> > > > pqReadData() -- backend closed the channel unexpectedly.
>
> Now have to look who damaged the parser in CURRENT not any
> longer accepting parentheses for mutiple action rules.

Has been commented out when INTERSECT came.

Fixed in CURRENT. I hate to but I have to comment on this:

Beeing able to put multiple actions for rules into
parentheses has been added and RELEASED with v6.4. And
this syntax is documented in the programmers manual of
v6.4.

It wasn't hard to reenable it. I just told gram.y that a
SelectStmt cannot occur in a multiple rule action block.
It looks to me, that it was taken out only to move
INTERSECT in the easy way. But this time the easy way is
IMHO the wrong way.

Removing a documented, released feature is something that
causes havy trouble for those who want to upgrade to a
new version.

Next time please keep existing syntax/features until
there is an agreement of the developers team that it has
to die.

BTW: There is 1 shift/reduce conflict in gram.y (was there
before I fixed multi action rules). Who introduced that?

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#======================================== jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #