> See my other reply about what gets added: the problem is the rewrite
> rule name, as you guessed.
>
> Here's a patch that silently truncates the generated rule name. Unlike
> tablename or generated sequence name truncation, there's no need in
> normal operation for the DBA to know the name of this rule, so I didn't
> put in a NOTICE about the truncation.
>
> I found every accurance of _RET in the source that refered to a view rule,
> and patched them to do the right thing.
Oh, the patch strikes me since it is not "multibyte aware." Are you
going to put it into the CVS? If so, please let me know after you do
it so that I could add the multibyte awareness to that.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
