From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: UPDATE SET (a,b,c) = (SELECT ...) versus rules |
Date: | 2014-06-17 14:31:00 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0y+_aKRNK066k9UU+M+XC_dS3YKD66V+qfnL0xVjgCvuQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> But come to think of it, WITH is already an interesting precedent: if you
> look into rewriteHandler.c you'll notice a boatload of corner cases where
> the rewriter just throws up its hands for various combinations of rules
> and statements containing WITH. So maybe that lends a bit more weight
> to Andres' position that it's okay to consider this an unimplemented
> feature.
This reflects previous consensus AIUI. RULES came up in similar way
with the 'data modifying with' feature; it was decided that as long as
old stuff didn't break new features don't necessarily have to go
through the motions. This essentially deprecates rules IMO, which is
fine. Maybe a small adjustment of the note in the rule documentation
couldn't hurt; it currently warns based on performance...a heads up
that current and future SQL features might not be fully supported
would be nice.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-06-17 14:31:45 | Re: Minmax indexes |
Previous Message | MauMau | 2014-06-17 14:26:37 | [patch] pg_copy - a command for reliable WAL archiving |