On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 22:21:27 -0400 (EDT), Bruce Momjian
<pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:
>so I propose we handle
>INSTEAD rules this way: that we return the oid and tuple count of the
>last INSTEAD rule query with a tag matching the main query.
Bruce, this won't work for this example
>> CREATE RULE visible_delete AS -- DELETE rule
>> ON DELETE TO visible
>> DO INSTEAD
>> COUNT UPDATE table3
>> SET deleted = 1
>> WHERE pk = old.pk;
because here we don't have a rule query with a matching tag. Same
applies for
>> CREATE RULE v_update AS -- UPDATE rule
>> ON UPDATE TO v
>> DO INSTEAD NOTHING;
I wrote:
>> One argument against automatically "don't count non-INSTEAD rules and
>> count the last statement in INSTEAD rules"
Seems I introduced a little bit of confusion here by argueing against
something that has never been proposed before. Funny, that this
non-existent proposal is now seriously discussed :-(
Has the idea of extending the syntax to explicitly mark queries as
COUNTed already been rejected? If yes, I cannot help here. If no, I
keep telling you that this approach can emulate most of the other
possible solutions still under discussion.
Bruce wrote:
>If there is more than one matching tag in
>the INSTEAD rule, the user has the option to place the query he wants
>for the return at the end of the rule.
Are you sure this is always possible without unwanted side effects?
ServusManfred