On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> >> I seriously doubt that there are many applications out there that are
>> >> actually depending on this aspect of rule execution; if anything, there
>> >> are probably more that will see it as a bug.
>>
>> > Changing EXPLAIN ANALYZE seems a bit less likely to break things for
>> > anyone depending on current behavior;
>>
>> Well, the point I was trying to make is that there may well be fewer
>> people depending on the current behavior than there are people for whom
>> the current behavior is wrong, only they don't know it because they've
>> not seen a failure (or not seen one often enough to diagnose what's
>> happening).
>>
>> This is of course merest speculation either way. But I don't feel that
>> we need to necessarily treat rule behavior as graven in stone.
>
> Where are we on this? It seems it is an issue independent of writable
> common table expressions (wCTEs).
I believe that it's the same issue as this patch:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=377
The status of that patch is that Tom promised to look at it two months
ago and hasn't. It would be nice if someone else could pick it up.
It's not good for our community to ignore patches that people have
taken the trouble to write and submit.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
