| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dmitry Tkach <dmitry(at)openratings(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] INSTEAD rule bug? |
| Date: | 2003-07-16 14:48:35 |
| Message-ID: | 18246.1058366915@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-general |
Dmitry Tkach <dmitry(at)openratings(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Dmitry Tkach <dmitry(at)openratings(dot)com> writes:
>>> It would have saved a lot of trouble if it just complained about that
>>> union thing right away and refuse to create the rule...
>>
>> That's what happens in CVS tip.
>>
> I thought you said it was only complaining about references to new and
> old, not about *any* union clause...
I don't see a need to reject "any" union clause. AFAIK the cases that
don't work are just the ones where NEW or OLD are referenced.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-07-16 16:06:44 | Vacuum going -D; crash or just impatience? |
| Previous Message | Dmitry Tkach | 2003-07-16 14:41:41 | Re: [GENERAL] INSTEAD rule bug? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Annabelle Desbois | 2003-07-16 15:35:29 | Transactions |
| Previous Message | Dmitry Tkach | 2003-07-16 14:41:41 | Re: [GENERAL] INSTEAD rule bug? |