Re: [SQL] Rules with Conditions: Bug, or Misunderstanding

From: Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Joel Burton <jburton(at)scw(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)orgg
Subject: Re: [SQL] Rules with Conditions: Bug, or Misunderstanding
Date: 2000-12-04 19:04:51
Message-ID: 200012041904.OAA17594@jupiter.jw.home
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql

Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Hm. Perhaps the "cannot update view" test is too strict --- it's not
> >> bright enough to realize that the two rules together cover all cases,
> >> so it complains that you *might* be trying to update the view. As the
> >> code stands, you must provide an unconditional DO INSTEAD rule to
> >> implement insertion or update of a view.
>
> > Disagree.
>
> > A conditional rule splits the command into two, one with the
> > rules action and the condition added, one which is the
> > original statement plus the negated condition. So there are
> > cases left where an INSERT can happen to the view relation
> > and it's the job of this test to prevent it.
>
> Well, in that case the present code is broken, because it's going to
> spit up if any part of the rewritten query shows the view as result
> relation (cf. QueryRewrite() ... note that this logic no longer looks
> much like it did the last time you touched it ;-)). You'd have to
> convert the existing rewrite-time test into a runtime test in order to
> see whether the query actually tries to insert any tuples into the view.

Yepp.

> While that is maybe reasonable for insertions, it's totally silly
> for update and delete queries. Since the view itself can never contain
> any tuples to be updated or deleted, a runtime test that errors out
> when one attempts to update or delete such a tuple could never fire.
> I don't think that means that we shouldn't complain about an update
> or delete on a view.
>
> I think the test is best left as-is...

Since conditional rules aren't any better compared to an
unconditional multi-action instead rule where the single
actions have all the different conditions, let's leave it as
is and insist on one unconditional instead rule.

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jan Wieck 2000-12-04 19:18:25 Re: Wrong FOR UPDATE lock type
Previous Message The Hermit Hacker 2000-12-04 18:59:52 Re: Using Threads?

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joel Burton 2000-12-04 20:27:34 Re: [SQL] Access Permissions/Security
Previous Message clayton cottingham 2000-12-04 17:57:22 Re: how to execute a C program via trigger ?