On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:30:56AM +0100, Greg Stark 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. In general if your source table is empty > then there's *nothing* you could cause to happen with triggers because > no triggers will fire. > > The analogy to this discussion would be something like "users get > confused by macros in C and usually what they're trying to do can be > better done with functions. now that we have functions we should > deprecate macros" All of the preconditions in that sentence are true > but it doesn't follow because macros exist for a reason.
Well, on a related note, I have heard that Java didn't implement macros because it confuses context-sensitive editors. Seems like a wrong-headed reason to remove a feature. This is not related to my opinion on rules, but I thought it was interesting. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers