| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: UPDATE SET (a,b,c) = (SELECT ...) versus rules |
| Date: | 2014-06-17 12:47:41 |
| Message-ID: | 20140617124741.GC18143@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-06-17 11:22:17 +0200, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 06/17/2014 09:43 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > On 06/14/2014 09:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> > As I mentioned awhile ago, I'm thinking about implementing the
> >> > SQL-standard construct
> >> >
> >> > UPDATE foo SET ..., (a,b,...) = (SELECT x,y,...), ...
> >> >
> >> > I've run into a rather nasty problem, which is how does this interact
> >> > with expansion of NEW references in ON UPDATE rules?
> >
> > Was'nt there a plan (consensus?) about deprecating rules altogether ?
>
> I believe that was just for user access to them, ie CREATE RULE. I
> don't think there was ever question of purging them from the code base.
I don't think any such concensus has been made? I wish it were, but the
last discussions about it imo ended quite differently.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-06-17 13:05:20 | Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.2 |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2014-06-17 12:38:40 | Re: UPDATE SET (a,b,c) = (SELECT ...) versus rules |