Dmitry Tkach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Dmitry Tkach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> 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.
>>
> I thought you said it was only complaining about references to new and
> old, not about *any* union clause...
I don't see a need to reject "any" union clause. AFAIK the cases that
don't work are just the ones where NEW or OLD are referenced.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
