| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Badger <bbadger(at)BadgerSE(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Frontend - Backend protocol change? |
| Date: | 2002-06-29 02:02:02 |
| Message-ID: | 11068.1025316122@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
Bruce Badger <bbadger(at)BadgerSE(dot)com> writes:
> My question is: which is "right" the 7.1 behavior, or the 7.2 behavior?
Hmm ... I'd opine that neither is "right"; the correct behavior would
be that you should see no trace of the background INSERT generated
by the rule, only of the UPDATE you actually issued.
7.2 seems to be suppressing the INSERT's completion response correctly,
but not the CursorResponse.
I *think* this might be fixed in current sources, but not sure. Also,
there is an open question whether we really like this behavior at all.
I'd be interested to see your take on the thread "Queries using rules
show no rows modified?" from mid-May in pgsql-hackers. (I'd give a
better URL if archive searching weren't currently broken for non-IE
browsers.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Cedar Cox | 2002-06-29 11:27:23 | large objects |
| Previous Message | Bruce Badger | 2002-06-28 22:40:49 | Frontend - Backend protocol change? |