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

Re: AW: [HACKERS] triggers, views and rules (not instead)

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at (Zeugswetter Andreas SARZ)
Cc: jwieck(at)debis(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org
Subject: Re: AW: [HACKERS] triggers, views and rules (not instead)
Date: 1998-02-20 19:15:09
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > 
> Ok, to sum it up:
> 	1. We need and want the select part of the rewrite rules.
> 	2. for the insert/update/delete rules the old instance rules system
> 	    was much more appropriate. TODO: dig up the old code
> 	    and merge it with the current trigger Implementation
> 		    it must be pretty much the wanted functionality (it
> supported sql)
> 		3. the CURRENT keyword in the i/u/d rewrite rules is stupid
> and should be disabled
> 		   destroyed and burned in hell
> 		4. To stick to the mainstream we should enhance the trigger
> syntax,
> 		    and forget the rule stuff for i/u/d
> 		create trigger passwd_utr
> 		..........
> 		referencing old as o new as n
> 		  for each row (statement, statement, statement, procedure,
> ...... all PL/pgSQL syntax allowed );
> 		-- with a syntax to modify the new tuple in memory

This all sounds good to me.  Let's do it soon.  I like the removal of
i/u/d rewrite so we can give people something that will work, and not
have all those gray areas of 'it works here, but not here.'

Bruce Momjian

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-02-20 19:16:14
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] group by problem
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-02-20 19:12:46
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Running pgindent

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