Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So, If I understood the proposals correctly, I think that means that
> > this implementation argues for, or at least would work well with,
> > Hiroshi's solution, since yours, Tom, would return a false zero in
> > certain (perhaps rare) situations,
>
> IMHO Hiroshi's solution would return false information in more cases
> than mine.
My solution never returns false information as to
patched cases though the returned result may be
different from the one clients expect.
Probably your solution doesn't return false
information either if 'UPDATE 0' means UPDATE 0
but unknown INSERT/DELETEs. But few(maybe no ?)
clients seem to think of it and what could clients
do with such infos in the first place ?
Of cource it is nice to have a complete solution
immediately but it doesn't seem easy. My patch is
only a makeshift solution but fixes the most
siginificant case(typical updatable views).
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
http://w2422.nsk.ne.jp/~inoue/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
