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

Re: [HACKERS] Rule plan size for views?

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: vadim(at)sable(dot)krasnoyarsk(dot)su (Vadim B(dot) Mikheev)
Cc: lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu, jwieck(at)debis(dot)com, darrenk(at)insightdist(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Rule plan size for views?
Date: 1998-03-03 02:29:17
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > I hesitate to remove any of the outfuncs stuff.  It is very useful, and
> > if it is missing, things are harder to debug.  Adding the fields I did
> > helped solve several problems I had when testing subselects, and I know
> > Vadim uses that output too.  Shame it goes into the rule, but hard to
> > imagine why the rule would not need it, except for fields that are only
> > used by the parser, but I think we need to be complete.  A better
> > solution would be to allow rewrite rules to span multiple blocks, or a
> > least allow them to take the space of two blocks.
> Or use LO.

Yea, that makes a lot of sense.

Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thomas G. LockhartDate: 1998-03-03 02:50:07
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Rule plan size for views?
Previous:From: Vadim B. MikheevDate: 1998-03-03 01:43:38
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Rule plan size for views?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group