Karel Zak wrote:
> > > But executor can knows that somethig was already executed, we can mark
> > > some already executed expressions in rewriter and not execute it again in
> > > final executor... like:
> > ...
> > >
> > > IMHO this is a good point for 7.2 ...
> >
> > But if instead of nextval() you had random(), would you still want to execute
> > it
> > only once ? And how should postgres know ?
>
> Talking you still about RULEs?
Yes, he is.
>
> ...I don't undestand you. What is a 'NEW' in RULE? I (and probably more
> users) expect that new data from tuple which go into original table. Right?
Most people would expect that - but it is the targetlist expression of this column from the query which
fired the rule! That's a little difference.
> Not ... if you use sequence. IMHO it's not "feature" but nice bug that
> crash your data integrity...
The PostgreSQL rule system is based on a general productional query rewrite rule system, designed decades ago
without thinking about column values like nextval() or random(). The usage of those expressions in a query firing
rules leads to unpredictable results.
To understand how rules work in detail you should read chapter 8 of the programmers manual.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
