On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > But come to think of it, WITH is already an interesting precedent: if you > look into rewriteHandler.c you'll notice a boatload of corner cases where > the rewriter just throws up its hands for various combinations of rules > and statements containing WITH. So maybe that lends a bit more weight > to Andres' position that it's okay to consider this an unimplemented > feature.
This reflects previous consensus AIUI. RULES came up in similar way with the 'data modifying with' feature; it was decided that as long as old stuff didn't break new features don't necessarily have to go through the motions. This essentially deprecates rules IMO, which is fine. Maybe a small adjustment of the note in the rule documentation couldn't hurt; it currently warns based on performance...a heads up that current and future SQL features might not be fully supported would be nice. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers