On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 22:21:27 -0400 (EDT), Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >so I propose we handle >INSTEAD rules this way: that we return the oid and tuple count of the >last INSTEAD rule query with a tag matching the main query.
Bruce, this won't work for this example >> CREATE RULE visible_delete AS -- DELETE rule >> ON DELETE TO visible >> DO INSTEAD >> COUNT UPDATE table3 >> SET deleted = 1 >> WHERE pk = old.pk; because here we don't have a rule query with a matching tag. Same applies for >> CREATE RULE v_update AS -- UPDATE rule >> ON UPDATE TO v >> DO INSTEAD NOTHING; I wrote: >> One argument against automatically "don't count non-INSTEAD rules and >> count the last statement in INSTEAD rules" Seems I introduced a little bit of confusion here by argueing against something that has never been proposed before. Funny, that this non-existent proposal is now seriously discussed :-( Has the idea of extending the syntax to explicitly mark queries as COUNTed already been rejected? If yes, I cannot help here. If no, I keep telling you that this approach can emulate most of the other possible solutions still under discussion. Bruce wrote: >If there is more than one matching tag in >the INSTEAD rule, the user has the option to place the query he wants >for the return at the end of the rule. Are you sure this is always possible without unwanted side effects? Servus Manfred ---------------------------(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