Re: Deprecating RULES - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Deprecating RULES
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZxDN7tN+8HtmXDztmL43Wne383JB2VP4wU9oXd0fxE9A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Deprecating RULES  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: Deprecating RULES  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Re: Deprecating RULES  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> As you can see, in the case of rewrite it takes us back 7 1/2 years. I know
> this is a *very* rough measure, but it still tends to indicate to me that
> the maintenance burden isn't terribly high.

That's a pretty neat one-liner.  However... in my view, the real cost
of rules is that they are hard to support as we add new features to
SQL.  I believe we already decided to punt on making them work with
CTEs... and maybe one other case?  I don't really remember the details
any more, but presumably this will come up again with MERGE, and
perhaps other cases...

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Hitoshi Harada
Date:
Subject: Re: hash_search and out of memory
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support for Array ELEMENT Foreign Keys