Tom,
Those would be real users who are not on any PG mailing list? Cause I
have not seen any complaints, much less any proposals for a solution...
On the Hibernate user mailing list.
--Josh
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FYI, after some tinkering around, I've found that RETURNING is 100%
incompatible with any table which has conditional DO INSTEAD rules; there's
just no way to make it work and return any
Josh Berkus wrote:
All,
I'll note that we currently prevent adding RETURNING to a *conditional* DO
INSTEAD rule. This means that if we have a conditional DO INSTEAD rule
which inserts into a different table than the final unconditional rule,
we'll be RETURNING wrong or empty values.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
All,
-- Make it possible to use RETURNING together with conditional DO INSTEAD
rules, such as for partitioning setups.
Added to TODO:
* Make it possible to use RETURNING together with conditional DO
Would it make sense to expand this to something like:
Make it possible for rules to return affected tuples?
I come to this because if you use a rule to create an updateable view,
you never know how many rows the view actually updated.
Updatable views can be (maybe) implemented with
All,
I'll note that we currently prevent adding RETURNING to a *conditional* DO
INSTEAD rule. This means that if we have a conditional DO INSTEAD rule
which inserts into a different table than the final unconditional rule,
we'll be RETURNING wrong or empty values. Mind you, that's a pretty
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FYI, after some tinkering around, I've found that RETURNING is 100%
incompatible with any table which has conditional DO INSTEAD rules; there's
just no way to make it work and return any intelligible data. This would be
a completely corner case, except
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Josh Berkus wrote:
All,
A Hibernate developer pointed out the following odd behavior to me in 8.2.1:
create table test ( test1 text );
create table test2 ( test_col text );
create rule test_insert as on insert to test do instead insert into
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A Hibernate developer pointed out the following odd behavior to me in 8.2.1:
create table test ( test1 text );
create table test2 ( test_col text );
create rule test_insert as on insert to test do instead insert into test2
values ( NEW.test1 ) RETURNING
Tom,
What the RETURNING clause in the rule does is let you define the data
that should be returned if the rewritten INSERT had a returning clause
to start with.
Hmmm. Aha, that works:
postgres=# insert into test values ( 'mary' ) returning test1;
test1
---
mary
So, this should
Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A Hibernate developer pointed out the following odd behavior to me in 8.2.1:
create table test ( test1 text );
create table test2 ( test_col text );
create rule test_insert as on insert to test do instead insert into test2
values (
Richard Huxton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
What the RETURNING clause in the rule does is let you define the data
that should be returned if the rewritten INSERT had a returning clause
to start with.
Sorry - haven't got a CSV download here, or I'd check myself. Does this
just
Tom,
Josh, this *is* documented; see the CREATE RULE reference page for full
details, and there's at least passing references here:
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/rules-update.html#RULES-UPD
ATE-VIEWS
Yeah, it's just hard to find since it's buried in an offhand example in a
13 matches
Mail list logo
