Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> >> > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> >> I seriously doubt that there are many applications out there that are
> >> >> actually depending on this aspect of rule execution; if anything, there
> >> >> are probably more that will see it as a bug.
> >>
> >> > Changing EXPLAIN ANALYZE seems a bit less likely to break things for
> >> > anyone depending on current behavior;
> >>
> >> Well, the point I was trying to make is that there may well be fewer
> >> people depending on the current behavior than there are people for whom
> >> the current behavior is wrong, only they don't know it because they've
> >> not seen a failure (or not seen one often enough to diagnose what's
> >> happening).
> >>
> >> This is of course merest speculation either way. ?But I don't feel that
> >> we need to necessarily treat rule behavior as graven in stone.
> >
> > Where are we on this? ?It seems it is an issue independent of writable
> > common table expressions (wCTEs).
>
> I believe that it's the same issue as this patch:
>
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=377
>
> The status of that patch is that Tom promised to look at it two months
> ago and hasn't. It would be nice if someone else could pick it up.
> It's not good for our community to ignore patches that people have
> taken the trouble to write and submit.
Oh, at least it is in the current commit-fest and was not lost.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +