Re: Bug in PL/pgSQL GET DIAGNOSTICS? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Bug in PL/pgSQL GET DIAGNOSTICS?
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.44.0209281231120.1149-100000@localhost.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Bug in PL/pgSQL GET DIAGNOSTICS?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Bug in PL/pgSQL GET DIAGNOSTICS?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian writes:

> Well, let's look at the common case.  For proper view rules, these would
> all return the right values because the UPDATE in the rule would be
> returned.  Is that what you mean?

I guess that really depends on whether the rules are written to properly
constrain the writes to the view to the set of rows visible by the view.
For example, if a view v1 selects from a single table t1 constrained by a
search condition, and I do UPDATE v1 SET ...; without a condition, does
that affect all rows in t1?  If not, then both our proposals are
equivalent, if yes, then the it's the user's fault, I suppose.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: hacker help: PHP-4.2.3 patch to allow restriction of
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: AIX compilation problems (was Re: Proposal ...)