X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF4DBDADC8 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:06:22 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 60116-06 for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:06:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B523DADAD for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:06:19 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j9PI6Hfd018660; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:06:17 -0400 (EDT) To: Wiebe Cazemier Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Delete rule chain stops unexpectedly In-reply-to: <435E4F7C.5060108@gmail.com> References: <4358F79B.1000409@gmail.com> <21436.1129905772@sss.pgh.pa.us> <435902DC.3000807@gmail.com> <23325.1129910791@sss.pgh.pa.us> <435E4F7C.5060108@gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to Wiebe Cazemier message dated "Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:30:04 +0200" Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:06:17 -0400 Message-ID: <18659.1130263577@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200510/294 X-Sequence-Number: 23147 Wiebe Cazemier writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Because the rule converts those inserts into, effectively, >> >> INSERT INTO debuglog SELECT ... WHERE EXISTS(some matching OLD row); >> >> and there are no longer any matching OLD rows in the view. > Is this behaviour also present in Postgres 7? It's always been like that. We've jiggered some details about the order of rule firing, but not much else. If you want a more detailed response you need to be more specific about what version you're comparing to and exactly what rules you're worried about. regards, tom lane