Should we wait for someone to actually ask for this before adding it to
the TODO list?  Does it cause a crash now?


Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> What I'm inclined to do for 8.2 is to disallow OLD/NEW references in
> >> multi-element VALUES clauses; the feature is still tremendously useful
> >> without that.
> > Given the timing, this sounds like a reasonable approach. I agree that 
> > the feature has lots of interesting uses -- I'd hate to see us lose 
> > that. Disallowing OLD/NEW references doesn't contradict the spec in any 
> > way AFAIK either.
> I don't think rules are in the spec at all ;-) ... so no, that's not
> a problem.  My example demonstrated a pretty likely use:
> create rule r2 as on update to src do
>       insert into log values(old.*, 'old'), (new.*, 'new');
> but for the moment we can tell people to work around it the way
> they always have:
> create rule r2 as on update to src do
>       insert into log select old.*, 'old' union all new.*, 'new';
> or just use two separate INSERT commands in the rule.
> We oughta fix it later, but I don't feel ashamed to have a restriction
> like this in the first cut.
>                       regards, tom lane
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

  Bruce Momjian   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to