> > > I am confused how yours differs from mine. I don't see how the last
> > > matching tagged query would not be from an INSTEAD rule.
> >
> > You could have both INSTEAD and non-INSTEAD rules firing for the same
> > original query. If the alphabetically-last rule is a non-INSTEAD rule,
> >
Manfred Koizar wrote:
> 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 wo
Tom Lane wrote:
> You can create as many rules as you want. One reasonably likely
> scenario is that you have a view, you make an ON INSERT DO INSTEAD
> rule to support insertions into the view (by inserting into some
> underlying table(s) instead), and then you add some not-INSTEAD
> rules to pe
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
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am confused how yours differs from mine. I don't see how the last
> matching tagged query would not be from an INSTEAD rule.
>>
>> You could have both INSTEAD and non-INSTEAD rules firing
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I am confused how yours differs from mine. I don't see how the last
> > matching tagged query would not be from an INSTEAD rule.
>
> You could have both INSTEAD and non-INSTEAD rules firing for the same
> original query. If the alp
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am confused how yours differs from mine. I don't see how the last
> matching tagged query would not be from an INSTEAD rule.
You could have both INSTEAD and non-INSTEAD rules firing for the same
original query. If the alphabetically-last rule is a n
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We have talked about possible return values for RULES, particularly
> > INSTEAD rule. Manfred has a nice example here, so I propose we handle
> > INSTEAD rules this way: that we return the oid and tuple count of the
> > last INSTEAD
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We have talked about possible return values for RULES, particularly
> INSTEAD rule. Manfred has a nice example here, 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 mat
We have talked about possible return values for RULES, particularly
INSTEAD rule. Manfred has a nice example here, 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. The
returned tag, of cours
10 matches
Mail list logo
