> I'm not the god of rules, but I have messed with that code. Current
> sources will put table prefixes on every var in a rule if more than one
> table appears in the rule's rangelist. I think this should be
> sufficient, but it's hard to tell from this incomplete example;
> are you actually complaining about some special case that arises when
> a column has the same name as its table?
>
> It would be nice to see the original view definition (plus enough table
> definitions to let us create the rule without guessing).
>
> regards, tom lane
I also looked back to double check versions. Unbeknownst to me, the
source database is 6.5.1 - the destination is 6.5.3
Version 6.5.3 seem to behave as you said, so I'm guessing that this
fix occurred relatively recently and I was just unaware it had been
fixed.
Karl
