On 15 October 2012 00:30, Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 12 October 2012 19:48, Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>>> AFAICS all RULEs can be re-expressed as Triggers or Views. >>> >>> This is a bizarre discussion. Firstly this isn't even close to true. >>> The whole source of people's discontentment is that triggers are *not* >>> equivalent to rules. If they were then they wouldn't be so upset. >> >> This may be a confusion on the point of equivalence; clearly the >> features work differently. >> >> I'm not aware of any rule that can't be rewritten as a trigger or a >> view. Please can anyone show me some examples of those? > > Huh? The one thing we currently use rules for, implementing views, > couldn't be done in triggers.
Yes, obviously.... > In general if your source table is empty > then there's *nothing* you could cause to happen with triggers because > no triggers will fire. Before statement triggers will fire. Please can anyone show me the SQL for a rule that cannot be written as a view or a trigger? I do not believe such a thing exists and I will provide free beer to the first person that can prove me wrong. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers