Re: BUG #6286: Table Partitioning - SQL/MED - interaction broken

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> We probably ought to have something in there to throw an error ...
>
>> Probably not for rules in general, but we shouldn't let people turn
>> tables into views if they are involved in table inheritance, as either
>> a parent or a child.
>
> Well, what I had in mind was disallowing any rules to be attached to an
> inheritance child, because they won't get expanded.  However, you have a
> point I guess: someone could conceivably want to have a rule that only
> takes effect when a child is accessed directly.

Right.

We've occasionally talked about deprecating non-SELECT rules anyway,
on the grounds that the results are often surprisingly and almost
never what you actually wanted. But that problem goes far beyond
inheritance hierarchies.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company