Re: Proposal: Solving the "Return proper affected tuple

Sorry guys - it's killing me!  It's 'affected' in the subject line - not
'effected'!!! Sigh :)

Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Bruce Momjian
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 September 2002 10:24 AM
> To: Peter Eisentraut
> Cc: Steve Howe; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Solving the "Return proper effected
> tuple
>
>
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Steve Howe writes:
> >
> > > Here are the proposals for solutioning the "Return proper effected
> > > tuple count from complex commands [return]" issue as seen on TODO.
> > >
> > > Any comments ?... This is obviously open to voting and discussion.
> >
> > We don't have a whole lot of freedom in this; this area is
> covered by the
> > SQL standard.  The major premise in the standard's point of view is that
> > views are supposed to be transparent.  That is, if
> >
> >     SELECT * FROM my_view WHERE condition;
> >
> > return N rows, then a subsequently executed
> >
> >     UPDATE my_view SET ... WHERE condition;
> >
> > returns an update count of N, no matter what happens behind the
> scenes.  I
> > don't think this matches Tom Lane's view exactly, but it's a lot closer
> > than your proposal.
>
> Oh, this is bad news.  The problem we have is that rules don't
> distinguish the UPDATE on the underlying tables of the rule from other
> updates that may appear in the query.
>
> If we go with Tom's idea and total just UPDATE's, we will get the right
> answer when there is only one UPDATE in the ruleset.
>
> --
>   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,
> Pennsylvania 19073
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>