Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> If we didn't set the locations to unknown, then errors complaining about >> problems arising within a rule would try to print pointers to locations in >> the calling query's text having the same offsets as the problematic item had >> in the original CREATE RULE or similar command. Not what we want.
> Just an idle thought... we could include the original source text with the > rule as well. Though how easy it would be to use when we expand the rule is > another question. Then you'd need some way of keeping track of *which* query string various nodes in the merged query tree were referencing. I'm not willing to go there, at least not in this pass at the problem. > The original objection included caveats that there may be other sites that > have uncertainty about whether to include the line number. Are you sure there > aren't any? Well, if there are, we'll find out when we actually try to do the work. Right now, however, I feel confident that we don't want equality to depend on syntactic position because it never has in the past. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers