"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 9/1/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Attached is a draft patch that makes rules support RETURNING ...
> What format is that patch in? Either something's wrong or Gmail just
> went really wacko.
It's just a gzip'd patch diff.
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 9/1/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Attached is a draft patch that makes rules support RETURNING ...
>
> What format is that patch in? Either something's wrong or Gmail just
> went really wacko.
I see the attachment fine.
--
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROT
On 9/1/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Attached is a draft patch that makes rules support RETURNING ...
What format is that patch in? Either something's wrong or Gmail just
went really wacko.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300
EnterpriseDB Corporation
Attached is a draft patch that makes rules support RETURNING as per my
proposal of earlier today, ie, have the rewriter automatically adjust a
RETURNING clause present in an unconditional INSTEAD rule. The core of
the patch is barely twenty lines (the code added to rewriteRuleAction)
--- the rest