You're right, rules are perfect for very limited and narrow cases. And
make it very hard to write complicated queries against. (i.e., updates
that only touch few columns, likewise with inserts).
I'm guessing the upside is that rules are faster then triggers.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list
> -Original Message-
> From: Gregg Jaskiewicz [mailto:gryz...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 5:18 AM
> To: Igor Neyman
> Cc: Ondrej Ivanič; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Rules going away
>
> speaking of DO INSTEAD, for inser
speaking of DO INSTEAD, for insert/update case. Try using RETURNING
with that and rules ;) Good luck
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
> -Original Message-
> From: Ondrej Ivanič [mailto:ondrej.iva...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 6:47 PM
> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: Rules going away
>
> Hi,
>
> > folks, don't use RULES! use triggers -- and as much as possible, keep
> > triggers sim
Hi,
> folks, don't use RULES! use triggers -- and as much as possible, keep
> triggers simple, short, and to the point (simple validation, custom
> RI, auditing/logging, etc).
I like them :). 'DO INSTEAD' rules are great for partitioning so you
can insert (or update) to parent table and 'DO INSTE
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Rob Sargent wrote:
>
>
> On 09/28/2011 08:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andrew Sullivan writes:
>>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 06:20:04AM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
There's an even better reason not to use rules: they're going away in
a not too distant version
On 09/28/2011 08:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan writes:
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 06:20:04AM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
>>> There's an even better reason not to use rules: they're going away in
>>> a not too distant version of PostgreSQL.
>> Really? How? I thought views were done us
