Re: UPDATE SET (a,b,c) = (SELECT ...) versus rules
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: UPDATE SET (a,b,c) = (SELECT ...) versus rules |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20140614194508.GE6763@awork2.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | UPDATE SET (a,b,c) = (SELECT ...) versus rules (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: UPDATE SET (a,b,c) = (SELECT ...) versus rules
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 2014-06-14 15:35:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Given that ON UPDATE rules are close to being a deprecated feature, > it doesn't seem appropriate to work harder than this; and frankly > I don't see how we could avoid multiple sub-select evaluations anyway, > if the NEW references are in WHERE or other odd places. > > Another possible answer is to just throw a "not implemented" error; > but that doesn't seem terribly helpful, and I think it wouldn't save > a lot of code anyway. I vote for throwing an error. This would make the rules about how rules can be used safely even more confusing. I don't think anybody would be helped by that. If somebody wrote a halfway sane ON UPDATE rule (i.e. calling a function to do the dirty work) it wouldn't be sane anymore if somebody starts to use the new syntax... Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: