From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200403050019.i250JqW21496@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: "ALSO" keyword to "CREATE RULE" patch
In-Reply-To: <4047C4F3.4000608@Yahoo.com>
To: Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 19:19:52 -0500 (EST)
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>,
	PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches@postgresql.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Jan Wieck wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > Jan Wieck wrote:
> >> Tom Lane wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> writes:
> >> >> Most of the patch deals with the documentation, which is rather ugly
> >> >> because it keeps telling about "INSTEAD" vs "non-INSTEAD" rules, as there
> >> >> is no name for the default behavior. I think "ALSO" fixes this issue as it
> >> >> clarifies the explanations.
> >> > 
> >> > Hmm ... I find that argument much more convincing than any of the others
> >> > ...
> >> > 
> >> > Jan, what do you think?  You invented this command's syntax IIRC.
> >> 
> >> I did not. We inherited it from Postgres 4.2. If people think an ALSO 
> >> keyword will clearify things, what about renaming the whole CREATE RULE 
> >> into something along the line CREATE QUERY REWRITE MACRO?
> > 
> > Are you saying you don't want ALSO added?
> > 
> 
> No, I am saying that CREATE RULE is so often misinterpreted to work like 
> a trigger and when we explain that it is more like Macro expansion 
> before the query is executed they understand better. CREATE RULE itself 
> is just vague, with or without ALSO.

True.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073