From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
Cc: Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Docs <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Cc: PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Partition: use triggers instead of rules
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:55:53 -0500
Message-ID: <2854.1196315753@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071129031702.GU24146@fetter.org>
References: <20071128202615.GG24146@fetter.org>
<21686.1196283184@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<36e682920711281858x9a37039sa104036bf025de41@mail.gmail.com>
<20071129031702.GU24146@fetter.org>
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:58:26PM -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 2007 3:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Entirely removing the example of how to do it with rules doesn't
>>> seem like a good idea.
>>
>> Agreed.
> Do you have an example of one use case where using RULEs rather than
> TRIGGERs is a good idea?
The argument I made for keeping the example around is not dependent on
the assumption that using a rule is a good idea. It's dependent on the
established fact that we have recommended that in prior releases, and
therefore people are going to be seeing that construct in real
databases.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, david@fetter.org, jonah.harris@gmail.com, pgsql-patches@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Partition: use triggers instead of rules
In-Reply-To: <2854.1196315753@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox