Tom Lane wrote:
> Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Of cource it is nice to have a complete solution
> > immediately but it doesn't seem easy. My patch is
> > only a makeshift solution but fixes the most
> > siginificant case(typical updatable views).
>
> I would like to devise a complete solution *before* we consider
> installing makeshift solutions (which will institutionalize wrong
> behavior).
>
> There seems to be some feeling here that in the presence of rewrites
> you only want to know that "something happened". Are you suggesting
> that the returned tuple count should be the sum of all counts from
> insert, update, and delete actions that happened as a result of the
> query? We could certainly implement that, but it does not seem like
> a good idea to me.
IMHO the answer should only be a number if the rewritten
querytree list consists of one query of the same command
type. everything else has to lead into "unknown".
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
