Re: BUG #2671: incorrect return value by RULE

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Toru SHIMOGAKI <shimogaki(dot)toru(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #2671: incorrect return value by RULE
Date: 2006-10-03 17:56:15
Message-ID: 8709.1159898175@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 11:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is the long-ago-agreed-to behavior, see
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/rules-status.html

> Understood this is not-a-bug, but it is an opportunity for the TODO.

> IMHO when we have a set of mutually exclusive conditional RULEs that it
> would be possible to identify the correct return value and display it.

What makes you think there is a single "correct" return value? If
multiple rows are being inserted/updated it's entirely possible that
some of them will be in different child partitions.

If we were interested in changing the status behavior, I'd be inclined
to think about something like adding up the rowcounts from all the
replacement queries that're of the same type as the original. However,
I have some recollection that this was proposed and shot down in the
discussions that led to the current solution --- as a counterexample
consider an ON INSERT DO ALSO that inserts rows into a logging table.
This should be hidden from the user but would not be if we added its
effects to the result tag.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message SeattleServer.com 2006-10-03 18:06:46 drop view stalled during pg_dump
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2006-10-03 17:38:36 Re: BUG #2671: incorrect return value by RULE