Thread: Names of view select rules
Currently, the name of the ON SELECT rule for a view is defined to be'_RET' || viewname
truncated if necessary to fit in a NAME.
I've just committed fixes to make rule names be per-relation instead
of global, and it occurs to me that we could now get rid of this
convention. The select rule name could be the same for all views ---
"_RETURN", say. This would simplify life in a number of places.
A quick look at psql, pgaccess, etc suggests that a lot of places know
that view select rule names begin with _RET, but not that many are
dependent on the rest of it. So I think this wouldn't break clients
too badly.
Any thoughts pro or con? I'm leaning towards changing it, but could be
persuaded to leave well enough alone.
regards, tom lane
No problem with that. Good idea IMHO. Jan Tom Lane wrote: > Currently, the name of the ON SELECT rule for a view is defined to be > '_RET' || viewname > truncated if necessary to fit in a NAME. > > I've just committed fixes to make rule names be per-relation instead > of global, and it occurs to me that we could now get rid of this > convention. The select rule name could be the same for all views --- > "_RETURN", say. This would simplify life in a number of places. > > A quick look at psql, pgaccess, etc suggests that a lot of places know > that view select rule names begin with _RET, but not that many are > dependent on the rest of it. So I think this wouldn't break clients > too badly. > > Any thoughts pro or con? I'm leaning towards changing it, but could be > persuaded to leave well enough alone. > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org > -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #