Any chance we can resolve this before 7.3? I will add it to the TODO
list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wieck wrote:
> 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 #
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
