Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.132.154]) by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eB5JKot08756; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 14:20:50 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eB5JL8Y17800; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 14:21:08 -0500 (EST) To: "Joel Burton" cc: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Rules with Conditions: Still Doesn't Work (Bug Rpt) In-reply-to: <3A2B7D2B.27409.3A1124@localhost> References: <3A2B7D2B.27409.3A1124@localhost> Comments: In-reply-to "Joel Burton" message dated "Mon, 04 Dec 2000 11:16:59 -0500" Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 14:21:08 -0500 Message-ID: <17797.976044068@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Archive-Number: 200012/38 X-Sequence-Number: 227 "Joel Burton" writes: > Tom Lane pointed out that, given the current handling of > conditional rules, this should be one rule, with two > actions. > For, this either fails to work, or in some circumstances, > or in some circumstances, crashes the backend. It turns out that all of these failures come from the same place, which is that I had broken the handling of INSERT ... SELECT actions inside rules. I have committed a patch that appears to fix the problem. I think that Marc has already tagged beta1, however, so the patch will not be in the beta1 tarball due to appear Real Soon Now. You can pull current sources from the CVS server, or grab a nightly snapshot tarball after tonight. Thanks for the detailed, easy-to-reproduce bug example! These sorts of reports are by far the nicest from a developer's point of view ;-) regards, tom lane