Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 286F12E0051;
	Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:17:45 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 68791-07; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:17:36 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F80C2E003E;
	Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:17:41 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id lASMHcfE024890;
	Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:17:38 -0500 (EST)
To: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
cc: PostgreSQL Docs <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>,
	PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Partition: use triggers instead of rules 
In-reply-to: <20071128205710.GL24146@fetter.org> 
References: <20071128202615.GG24146@fetter.org>
	<21686.1196283184@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20071128205710.GL24146@fetter.org>
Comments: In-reply-to David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
	message dated "Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:57:10 -0800"
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:17:38 -0500
Message-ID: <24889.1196288258@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200711/114
X-Sequence-Number: 4647

David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 03:53:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Entirely removing the example of how to do it with rules doesn't
>> seem like a good idea.

> It does to me.  I haven't found a case yet where rules worked even as
> well as triggers.

I don't have a problem with emphasizing triggers as the preferred
solution, but we should keep the older example, if only because people
are going to see DB schemas that use that approach, and they won't
understand what's going on (or realize they could convert) if they've
not seen an example.

			regards, tom lane