On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 at 23:54, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I think this might be the same issue recently discussed here:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1df84daa-7d0d-e8cc-4762-85523e45e5e7%40mailbox.org
Yeah that's definitely the same issue.
> That discussion was leaning towards the idea that the cost-benefit
> of fixing this isn't attractive and we should just document the
> discrepancy. However, with two reports now, maybe we should rethink.
I think it's interesting that both reports use rules in the same way,
i.e. to implement soft-deletes. That indeed seems like a pretty good
usecase for them. And since pretty much every serious client library
uses the extended query protocol, this breaks that usecase. But if
it's hard to fix, I'm indeed not sure if it's worth the effort. If we
don't we should definitely document it though, at CREATE RULE and in
the protocol spec.
