| 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: | 199803030229.VAA16400@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1998-03-03 02:50:07 | Re: [HACKERS] Rule plan size for views? |
| Previous Message | Vadim B. Mikheev | 1998-03-03 01:43:38 | Re: [HACKERS] Rule plan size for views? |