On 2014-06-14 19:27:03 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 6/14/14, 3:51 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > >>Hm. But you might as well use a trigger, no? Is anyone likely to > >>>actually be doing such a thing? > >I don't think anybody is likely to do such a thing on an actual table, > >but INSTEAD OF for views is pretty new. For a long time rules were the > >the only way to implement updatable views (including any form of row > >level security). > > > >>>It's conceivable that we could optimize the special case of NEW.*, > >>>especially if it appears in the rule query's targetlist. But it's > >>>trouble I don't really care to undertake ... > >I think it's fine to just throw an error. > > If there was a showstopper to moving forward with rule support I think > it'd be OK to throw our hands in the air, but that's not the case > here. > > I'm in favor of doing the substitution, just like we do today with > RULES, warts and all. We already warn people against using rules and > that they're very difficult to get correct, so I don't think double > eval of an expression should surprise anyone.
It makes a formerly correct/safe rule unsafe. That's a showstopper from my POV. There's *STILL* no proper warning against rules in the manual, btw. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
