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

Re: Re: [SQL] Rules with Conditions: Bug, or Misunderstanding

From: Mark Hollomon <mhh(at)mindspring(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Joel Burton" <jburton(at)scw(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: [SQL] Rules with Conditions: Bug, or Misunderstanding
Date: 2000-12-01 03:07:22
Message-ID: 00113022072200.00743@jupiter.hollomon.fam (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-sql
On Wednesday 29 November 2000 19:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hm.  Perhaps the "cannot update view" test is too strict --- it's not
> bright enough to realize that the two rules together cover all cases,
> so it complains that you *might* be trying to update the view.  As the
> code stands, you must provide an unconditional DO INSTEAD rule to
> implement insertion or update of a view.

The idea was to check just before the update occurred to see if the 
destination was view. Maybe the test is too high up, before all rewriting

It is in InitPlan, the same place we check to make sure that we are not 
changing a sequence or a toast table. (actually initResultRelInfo called from 
InitPlan). I gathered from the backend flowchart that this wasn't called 
until all rewriting was done. Was I wrong?

If all rewriting _is_ done at that point, why is the view still in the 
ResultRelInfo ?

Mark Hollomon

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: The Hermit HackerDate: 2000-12-01 04:00:12
Subject: Re: beta testing version
Previous:From: Don BaccusDate: 2000-12-01 01:57:44
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: PHPBuilder article -- Postgres vs MySQL

pgsql-sql by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-12-01 04:46:18
Subject: Re: pltcl: missing close-brace
Previous:From: Jonathan EllisDate: 2000-12-01 00:50:47
Subject: pltcl: missing close-brace

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group