On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> We probably ought to have something in there to throw an error ... > >> Probably not for rules in general, but we shouldn't let people turn >> tables into views if they are involved in table inheritance, as either >> a parent or a child. > > Well, what I had in mind was disallowing any rules to be attached to an > inheritance child, because they won't get expanded. However, you have a > point I guess: someone could conceivably want to have a rule that only > takes effect when a child is accessed directly.
Right. We've occasionally talked about deprecating non-SELECT rules anyway, on the grounds that the results are often surprisingly and almost never what you actually wanted. But that problem goes far beyond inheritance hierarchies. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
