Tom Lane wrote:
> Steve Howe <howe@carcass.dhs.org> writes:
> > BM> I suggest you read the TODO detail on the item and make a proposal on
> > BM> how it _should_ work and if you can get agreement from everyone, you may
> > BM> be able to nag someone into doing a patch.
>
> > I think it should return the number of rows modified in the context of
> > the view, and not exactly that of each of the tables affected.
>
> That's so vague as to be useless. What is "in the context of the view"?
> How does that notion help us resolve the uncertainties discussed in the
> TODO thread?
>
> > This was working on some previous build, wasn't it ? What was the
> > previous behavior ? Shouldn't the patch follow that way ?
>
> The old behavior was quite broken too, just not in a way that affected
> you. We will not be reverting the change that fatally broke it (namely
> altering the order of RULE applications for INSERTs) and so "go back
> to the old code" isn't a workable answer at all.
>
> I don't think fixing the code is the hard part; agreeing on what the
> behavior should be in complex cases is the hard part.
Yes, Steve, if you want a fix, you better read the TODO detail and come
up with a proposal and try to sell it to the group.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073