On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > > On 10/17/2012 07:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> >> I'm fairly annoyed by the entire tenor of this conversation, because >> the people who are hollering the loudest seem to be people who have >> never actually touched any of the rules code, but nonetheless seem >> prepared to tell those of us who have what to spend our time on. > > > +1 > > I too have been quite annoyed.
Sorry that I'm an offender. I also did not like the way the conversation was going for some time; for me, I felt like I didn't understand a lot of the terse rejections that materialized immediately on behalf of users that I personally cannot identify, and I felt those rejections weren't in a neutral language either that encouraged clarification. I'm glad things have moved beyond that. > The biggest pain people have mentioned is that they don't work with COPY. I > am in fact about to start working on a project which will probably alleviate > that pain point. I'm not going to say much more, and I would not have said > anything right now except that there is this sudden rush to deprecate rules, > or announce a future removal of the feature. However, I hope to have a > proposal to put to the community by about the end of November. I have encountered this as a papercut. Here's another use case that in my history with RULES that didn't seem to pan out so well: In my recollection, one way to use rules is to retarget operations that happen against a view and move them to a table, and as I recall to make this work as one expected one had to have a very wordy RULE (for UPDATEs) with a litany of (fairly simple) equality and not-null conditions to make it work as one would expect (to not under-constrain the UPDATE). This became a maintenance headache whenever attributes were added to the underlying relation. It was also quite complex, as I recall, when one wanted to maintain an interface but normalize the underlying table and split writes into two or more places. It has been quite some time, does that sound like a correct rendering of a problem? -- fdr -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers