pg.ddx.io  pgsql-docs@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Cc: Hackers (PostgreSQL) <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Values list-of-targetlists patch for comments (was Re: [PATCHES] 8.2 features?)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 22:52:00 -0400
Message-ID: <28624.1154487120@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <44CFBC78.2020508@joeconway.com>
References: <44B69778.5050104@dunslane.net>
	<50461.84.63.113.55.1152832991.squirrel@pezone.net>
	<ECCAAC0A3182895D3D12B0E8@[172.26.14.247]>
	<44B7ADFC.90205@dunslane.net>
	<44BC0432.3040509@joeconway.com>
	<44BC661F.80609@joeconway.com>
	<44BCD06C.3060409@calorieking.com>
	<44BCF1D4.3010807@dunslane.net>
	<5842.1153246741@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<44BD8854.9060506@calorieking.com>
	<15212.1153279954@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<44BDB2F5.7080003@joeconway.com>
	<44BEA710.6060700@joeconway.com>
	<23198.1153367887@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<44BF0382.2010501@joeconway.com>
	<23454.1153370214@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<44BF122F.1080200@joeconway.com>
	<23927.1153373971@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<44C00E1E.1000405@joeconway.com>
	<14047.1153442773@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<44C4451A.4010906@joeconway.com>
	<11495.1153757531@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<44C4F625.2050304@joeconway.com>
	<12029.1153760969@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<44CC0A66.6070903@joeconway.com>
	<16429.1154463351@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<44CFBC78.2020508@joeconway.com>

Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> What I'm inclined to do for 8.2 is to disallow OLD/NEW references in
>> multi-element VALUES clauses; the feature is still tremendously useful
>> without that.

> Given the timing, this sounds like a reasonable approach. I agree that 
> the feature has lots of interesting uses -- I'd hate to see us lose 
> that. Disallowing OLD/NEW references doesn't contradict the spec in any 
> way AFAIK either.

I don't think rules are in the spec at all ;-) ... so no, that's not
a problem.  My example demonstrated a pretty likely use:

create rule r2 as on update to src do
	insert into log values(old.*, 'old'), (new.*, 'new');

but for the moment we can tell people to work around it the way
they always have:

create rule r2 as on update to src do
	insert into log select old.*, 'old' union all new.*, 'new';

or just use two separate INSERT commands in the rule.

We oughta fix it later, but I don't feel ashamed to have a restriction
like this in the first cut.

			regards, tom lane



view thread (61+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <28624.1154487120@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../28624.1154487120@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/28624.1154487120@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
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, mail@joeconway.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: Values list-of-targetlists patch for comments (was Re: [PATCHES] 8.2 features?)
  In-Reply-To: <28624.1154487120@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