Tom Lane wrote: > Steve Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > BM> I suggest you read the TODO detail on the item and make a proposal on > > BM> how it _should_ work and if you can get agreement from everyone, you may > > BM> be able to nag someone into doing a patch. > > > I think it should return the number of rows modified in the context of > > the view, and not exactly that of each of the tables affected. > > That's so vague as to be useless. What is "in the context of the view"? > How does that notion help us resolve the uncertainties discussed in the > TODO thread? > > > This was working on some previous build, wasn't it ? What was the > > previous behavior ? Shouldn't the patch follow that way ? > > The old behavior was quite broken too, just not in a way that affected > you. We will not be reverting the change that fatally broke it (namely > altering the order of RULE applications for INSERTs) and so "go back > to the old code" isn't a workable answer at all. > > I don't think fixing the code is the hard part; agreeing on what the > behavior should be in complex cases is the hard part.
Yes, Steve, if you want a fix, you better read the TODO detail and come up with a proposal and try to sell it to the group. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
