Dmitry Tkach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:I thought you said it was only complaining about references to new and old, not about *any* union clause...
It would have saved a lot of trouble if it just complained about that union thing right away and refuse to create the rule...
That's what happens in CVS tip.
Did I get it wrong?
I am afraid, that's too complicated for me :-)
On a different note, I think there *is* a way to add a where clause to the union - that's exactly what I did in that last example - by converting it into a subselect...
Can that not be done automatically for conditional rules?
Send a patch... or at least convince us it can be done ... I'm not convinced yet.
I tried to dig through the source a little bit when I was struggling to figure out why the damn thing did not work, but I could not even find the place where those qualifiers are evaluated. :-(
Besides, as I said earlier, I don't really think that such an improvement would be of much use anyway, unless at the same time we find away to allow referencing new and old (or at least new, which, I suspect is much easier) from inside the union... I don't really understand the reason why that cannot be supported (but I am sure, it's a good one) :-), and without that I just can't think of any example where using the union inside a rule would be useful for anything anyway, so, unless we want to consider allowing new and old at the same time, it looks like trying to make unions work isn't worth the effort... Just indicating properly that they don't would be good enough
Dima
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
