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.
regards, tom lane