Re: [HACKERS] trouble with rules

Bruce Momjian wrote:

> This is normally caused by Stephan's patches.  His patches were
> originally against 6.3, and he ported them to 6.4, but he normally does
> lots of development without any communication with us, sends us a huge
> patch, and we normally have to clean up the edges somewhat.  This patch
> actually caused fewer problems than the HAVING patch he submitted.

    Porting  his  patch  to  v6.4 was not exactly what he did. He
    changed the v6.5 tree in a way that his patch fit's into.

    Namely he removed copyObject() in some cases. copyObject() is
    an  expensive  function. There are only 2 reasons to call it.
    One is that the object in question lives in a memory  context
    that  could get destroyed before we are done with the object.
    The other is that we are  about  to  change  the  object  but
    others  need  it  unchanged  (in  the actual case varno's got
    changed).

    And he  reverted  the  possibility  to  group  multiple  rule
    actions in ()'s.

    One  good  thing  it  caused  is, that I realize I was wrong!
    LIMIT seems to never have been applied to the tree - OOOPS. I
    don't  know  how  this could have happened. Must do it before
    v6.5 BETA because it's FEATURE.


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#======================================== jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #