Re: Queries using rules show no rows modified? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jan Wieck
Subject Re: Queries using rules show no rows modified?
Date
Msg-id 200205101019.g4AAJGD03410@saturn.janwieck.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Queries using rules show no rows modified?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Queries using rules show no rows modified?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Queries using rules show no rows modified?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > Of cource it is nice to have a complete solution
> > immediately but it doesn't seem easy. My patch is
> > only a makeshift solution but fixes the most
> > siginificant case(typical updatable views).
>
> I would like to devise a complete solution *before* we consider
> installing makeshift solutions (which will institutionalize wrong
> behavior).
>
> There seems to be some feeling here that in the presence of rewrites
> you only want to know that "something happened".  Are you suggesting
> that the returned tuple count should be the sum of all counts from
> insert, update, and delete actions that happened as a result of the
> query?  We could certainly implement that, but it does not seem like
> a good idea to me.
   IMHO  the  answer  should  only  be a number if the rewritten   querytree list consists of one  query  of  the  same
command   type.  everything else has to lead into "unknown".
 


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jan Wieck
Date:
Subject: Re: the parsing of parameters
Next
From: Manfred Koizar
Date:
Subject: Nested transactions RFC