> My pattern of use for ``CREATE RULE... NOTIFY...'' was, up to now, to get
> a notice when anything changed on a table and then go look what happened;
> a `poor man's statement level trigger' if you wish. Thus, the old behavior
> didn't bother me that much. I don't know how others are using it.
Yeah, that is the normal and recommended usage pattern for NOTIFY, so
getting a NOTIFY when nothing actually happened is fairly harmless.
(Undoubtedly that's why no one complained before.)
Changing the rewriter to error out when it couldn't really Do The Right
Thing seemed like a good idea at the time, but now it seems clear that
this didn't do anything to enhance the usefulness of the system. Unless
someone objects, I'll change it back for 7.2.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2001-09-07 04:32:33|
|Subject: Beta Monday?|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2001-09-07 04:30:24|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] JDBC pg_description update needed for CVS tip|
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Larry Rosenman||Date: 2001-09-07 04:37:53|
|Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/utils/mb encnames.c win1251. ...|
|Previous:||From: tomas||Date: 2001-09-07 04:10:01|
|Subject: Re: Conditional NOTIFY is not implemented|