Jan Wieck writes:
> I think we will have no chance to really return the number of
> VIEW-tuples affected. So any implementation is only a guess and we could
> simply return fixed 42 if "some" tuples where affected at all. This
> return is as wrong (according to Steve) as everything else but at le
Jan Wieck wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Jan Wieck wrote:
> > > We should surely keep this on a much more technical level and avoid any
> > > personal offendings. To do so, please explain to me why you think that
> > > triggers and constraints are out of focus here? What is the difference
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Jan Wieck wrote:
> > We should surely keep this on a much more technical level and avoid any
> > personal offendings. To do so, please explain to me why you think that
> > triggers and constraints are out of focus here? What is the difference
> > between a trigger, a rule
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> All the problems here are coming from INSTEAD rules. We don't have
> >> INSTEAD triggers or contraints.
>
> > Sure we do, well sort of. :)
> > Make a before trigger
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why is "rules firing in an unpredicatable order" a bug but "returned
> affected tuple count is wrong " just a compatibility issue ?
> Afaik, rule firing order has never been promised, while pqCmdTuples()
> has.
There has never been any spec saying exact
Stephan Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> All the problems here are coming from INSTEAD rules. We don't have
>> INSTEAD triggers or contraints.
> Sure we do, well sort of. :)
> Make a before trigger that does a different statement and returns NULL
>
On Mon, 2002-09-09 at 21:25, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> And this has got to be trolling: PostgreSQL is one of the _most_
> stability and correctness focused software projects I've ever known. In
> this particular case, the complaints about this issue where "Your bugfix
> broke my tool! make it bet
> What is the difference
> between a trigger, a rule and an instead rule from a business process
> oriented point of view? I think there is none at all. They are just
> different techniques to do one and the same, implement
> business logic in the database system.
The difference is how other db'
Hello Bruce,
Monday, September 9, 2002, 11:13:20 PM, you wrote:
BM> Steve Howe wrote:
>> Because the affected commands are supposed to give you back
>> information on what your INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE commands, not what is
>> making behind the scenes.
>>
>> And it seems that other people in the th
On Mon, 2002-09-09 at 22:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jan Wieck wrote:
> > We should surely keep this on a much more technical level and avoid any
> > personal offendings. To do so, please explain to me why you think that
> > triggers and constraints are out of focus here? What is the difference
> >
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jan Wieck wrote:
> > We should surely keep this on a much more technical level and avoid any
> > personal offendings. To do so, please explain to me why you think that
> > triggers and constraints are out of focus here? What is the difference
> > between
Steve Howe wrote:
> Because the affected commands are supposed to give you back
> information on what your INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE commands, not what is
> making behind the scenes.
>
> And it seems that other people in the thread agree with me, please
> read thread.
>
> Since you are probably very
Jan Wieck wrote:
> We should surely keep this on a much more technical level and avoid any
> personal offendings. To do so, please explain to me why you think that
> triggers and constraints are out of focus here? What is the difference
> between a trigger, a rule and an instead rule from a busine
Actually, this problem is part of a whole scope of problems that were in
the Berkeley code, because rules, and inheritance, just have a certain
contorting effect on SQL queries where it is difficult to get them
working properly.
If these features didn't come from Berkeley, I doubt we would have e
Hello Jan,
Monday, September 9, 2002, 4:56:04 PM, you wrote:
JW> Steve Howe wrote:
>>
>> Hello Jan,
>>
>> Monday, September 9, 2002, 11:15:47 AM, you wrote:
>>
>> JW> So please, "proper behavior" is not allways what your favorite tool
>> JW> expects. And just because you cannot "fix" your too
Steve Howe wrote:
>
> Hello Jan,
>
> Monday, September 9, 2002, 11:15:47 AM, you wrote:
>
> JW> So please, "proper behavior" is not allways what your favorite tool
> JW> expects. And just because you cannot "fix" your tool doesn't make that
> JW> behavior any more "proper".
> Do you have any wo
> -Original Message-
> From: Ross J. Reedstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 12:26 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: Rod Taylor; Steve Howe; PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Rule updates and PQcmdstatus() issue
>
>
> On
> > If we didn't do that, then Postgresql never would have been
> > released in the first place, nor any date between then and now.
> I believe that the surprise is at the focus, when it comes to a release.
> With commercial products (anyway) if you have any sort of show-stopper
> bug (crashing,
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 11:30:52AM -0700, Dann Corbit wrote:
> >
> > I suspect it'll be several more major releases before we
> > begin to consider it approaching completely functional.
>
> I believe that the surprise is at the focus, when it comes to a release.
> With commercial products (anyw
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 11:30:52AM -0700, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
> All kidding aside, I would like to see increased emphasis on stability
> and correctness. But I will admit that it is a lot less fun than adding
> new features.
But in fairness, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a set of
devel
> -Original Message-
> From: Rod Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 10:55 AM
> To: Steve Howe
> Cc: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Rule updates and PQcmdstatus() issue
>
>
> > existed, had a brief
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Steve Howe wrote:
> JW> Steve Howe wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> PostgreSQL *still* has a bug where PQcmdStatus() won't return the
> >> number of rows updated. But that is essential for applications, since
> >> without it of course we don't know if the updates/delete/
> existed, had a brief discussion on the subject, and couldn't reach an
> agreement. That's ok for me, I understand... but releasing versions
> known to be broken is something I can't understand.
-9' the postmaster
If we didn't do that, then Postgresql never would have been released in
the first
Hello Jan,
Monday, September 9, 2002, 11:15:47 AM, you wrote:
JW> Steve Howe wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> PostgreSQL *still* has a bug where PQcmdStatus() won't return the
>> number of rows updated. But that is essential for applications, since
>> without it of course we don't know if the upd
Hello Jan,
Monday, September 9, 2002, 11:26:20 AM, you wrote:
JW> Seems you at least realized how serious it is. Even if you cannot code
JW> the "proper" solution, could you please make a complete table of all
JW> possible situations and the expected returns? With complete I mean
JW> including a
Hello Jan,
Monday, September 9, 2002, 11:26:20 AM, you wrote:
JW> Steve Howe wrote:
>>
>> Hello Bruce,
>>
>> Friday, September 6, 2002, 9:52:18 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> BM> I am not any happier about it than you are. Your report is good because
>> BM> it is the first case where returning the wro
> could you please make a complete table of all
> possible situations and the expected returns? With complete I mean
> including all combinations of rules, triggers, deferred constraints and
> the like. Or do you at least see now where in the discussion we got
> stuck?
Imho only view rules (== in
Steve Howe wrote:
>
> Hello Bruce,
>
> Friday, September 6, 2002, 10:58:13 PM, you wrote:
>
> BM> Well, there was a big discussion, and I did bring up the issue in early
> BM> August to see if I could get a resolution to it and was told no
> BM> conclusion could be made.
>
> BM> I suggest you
Steve Howe wrote:
>
> Hello Bruce,
>
> Friday, September 6, 2002, 9:52:18 PM, you wrote:
>
> BM> I am not any happier about it than you are. Your report is good because
> BM> it is the first case where returning the wrong value actually breaks
> BM> software. You may be able to justify adding
Steve Howe wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> PostgreSQL *still* has a bug where PQcmdStatus() won't return the
> number of rows updated. But that is essential for applications, since
> without it of course we don't know if the updates/delete/insert
> commands succeded. Even worst, on interfaces like Del
Hello Tom,
Saturday, September 7, 2002, 5:42:33 PM, you wrote:
TL> Steve Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 int
Tom Lane wrote:
> Steve Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Hello Bruce,
Friday, September 6, 2002, 10:58:13 PM, you wrote:
BM> Well, there was a big discussion, and I did bring up the issue in early
BM> August to see if I could get a resolution to it and was told no
BM> conclusion could be made.
BM> I suggest you read the TODO detail on the item and ma
Steve Howe wrote:
> Hello Bruce,
>
> Friday, September 6, 2002, 9:52:18 PM, you wrote:
>
>
> BM> I am not any happier about it than you are. Your report is good because
> BM> it is the first case where returning the wrong value actually breaks
> BM> software. You may be able to justify adding
Hello Bruce,
Friday, September 6, 2002, 9:52:18 PM, you wrote:
BM> I am not any happier about it than you are. Your report is good because
BM> it is the first case where returning the wrong value actually breaks
BM> software. You may be able to justify adding a fix during beta by saying
BM> i
I am not any happier about it than you are. Your report is good because
it is the first case where returning the wrong value actually breaks
software. You may be able to justify adding a fix during beta by saying
it is a bug fix.
Of course, someone is going to have to generate a patch and cham
Hello Bruce,
Friday, September 6, 2002, 3:22:13 PM, you wrote:
BM> Steve Howe wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> PostgreSQL *still* has a bug where PQcmdStatus() won't return the
>> number of rows updated. But that is essential for applications, since
>> without it of course we don't know if the update
Steve Howe wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> PostgreSQL *still* has a bug where PQcmdStatus() won't return the
> number of rows updated. But that is essential for applications, since
> without it of course we don't know if the updates/delete/insert
> commands succeded. Even worst, on interfaces like Delphi
Hello all,
PostgreSQL *still* has a bug where PQcmdStatus() won't return the
number of rows updated. But that is essential for applications, since
without it of course we don't know if the updates/delete/insert
commands succeded. Even worst, on interfaces like Delphi/dbExpress the
program will re
39 matches
Mail list logo
