Should we wait for someone to actually ask for this before adding it to the TODO list? Does it cause a crash now?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Lane wrote: > Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> What I'm inclined to do for 8.2 is to disallow OLD/NEW references in > >> multi-element VALUES clauses; the feature is still tremendously useful > >> without that. > > > Given the timing, this sounds like a reasonable approach. I agree that > > the feature has lots of interesting uses -- I'd hate to see us lose > > that. Disallowing OLD/NEW references doesn't contradict the spec in any > > way AFAIK either. > > I don't think rules are in the spec at all ;-) ... so no, that's not > a problem. My example demonstrated a pretty likely use: > > create rule r2 as on update to src do > insert into log values(old.*, 'old'), (new.*, 'new'); > > but for the moment we can tell people to work around it the way > they always have: > > create rule r2 as on update to src do > insert into log select old.*, 'old' union all new.*, 'new'; > > or just use two separate INSERT commands in the rule. > > We oughta fix it later, but I don't feel ashamed to have a restriction > like this in the first cut. > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
