Peter Eisentraut <e99re41@DoCS.UU.SE> writes:
> Could the God of Rules please comment on this? It seems to be a deficiency
> in the get_rule_def (sp?) backend function. Perhaps to play it safe all
> attributes should be fully qualified, but that's probably not as easy as
> it sounds.
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
