From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | mhh(at)mindspring(dot)com |
Cc: | "Joel Burton" <jburton(at)scw(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: [SQL] Rules with Conditions: Bug, or Misunderstanding |
Date: | 2000-12-02 05:18:39 |
Message-ID: | 16036.975734319@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
Mark Hollomon <mhh(at)mindspring(dot)com> writes:
> I think it would be better to move the test further down, to just before we
> actually try to do the update/insert. Maybe into the heap access routines as
> suggested by Andreas.
I'm worried about whether it'll be practical to generate a good error
message from that low a level.
Looking at it from the DBA's viewpoint rather than implementation
details, I haven't seen a good reason *why* we should support
conditional rules for views, as opposed to an unconditional rule with
multiple actions. Seems to me that writing independent rules that you
hope will cover all cases is a great way to build an unreliable system.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-12-02 16:42:38 | Re: beta testing version |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-12-02 05:11:23 | Re: ALTER FUNCTION problem |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Roberto Mello | 2000-12-02 06:09:04 | Re: I can be a BUG? |
Previous Message | Ross J. Reedstrom | 2000-12-02 03:27:06 | Re: I can be a BUG? |