Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60B1F2E35D7; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:56:01 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 60617-08; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:55:55 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A75EC2E35D6; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:55:56 -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 lAT5trMT002855; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:55:54 -0500 (EST) To: David Fetter cc: "Jonah H. Harris" , PostgreSQL Docs , PostgreSQL Patches Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Partition: use triggers instead of rules 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> Comments: In-reply-to David Fetter message dated "Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:17:02 -0800" Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:55:53 -0500 Message-ID: <2854.1196315753@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200711/121 X-Sequence-Number: 4654 David Fetter writes: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:58:26PM -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote: >> On Nov 28, 2007 3:53 PM, Tom Lane 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