> >     The  simple way is to reduce the capabilities of the Postgres
> >     rule system. Changing the syntax of the CREATE RULE to
> > 
> >         CREATE RULE rule AS { BEFORE | AFTER } event TO table
> >             DO [ INSTEAD ] { action | NOTHING }
> > 
> >     would tell the rewrite handler, if the rule actions  have  to
> >     be  applied  before or after the query. Respectively only NEW
> >     or CURRENT could be referenced in the rules qualification and
> >     actions.  I  don't like this simple way, but I think it's the
> >     only possibility that would work  without  reincarnating  the
> >     instance rule system.
> 
> Good description of the problem.  If adding BEFORE/AFTER makes it easier
> to program, do it.  I don't think we are losing any functionality by
> doing this, and the rule system is advertized as being broken, so there
> is probably not a huge installed base.
> 
> We now have something that doesn't work.  If you can get it working, do
> it.  The change makes it clearer to the user exactly how the rule is
> going to behave, too.

Jan, I remember you steering away from rewrite cleanups because we were
so close to 6.3.  Any chance you can make those changes for 6.4, or are
you already working on them?   We really need cleanup in the rewrite
area, and I understand you can do it.


-- 
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

Sat, 4 Jul 1998 19:57:11 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [PG95-DEV] Rule system
>
> > >     The  simple way is to reduce the capabilities of the Postgres
> > >     rule system. Changing the syntax of the CREATE RULE to
> > >
> > >         CREATE RULE rule AS { BEFORE | AFTER } event TO table
> > >             DO [ INSTEAD ] { action | NOTHING }
> > >
> > >     would tell the rewrite handler, if the rule actions  have  to
> > >     be  applied  before or after the query. Respectively only NEW
> > >     or CURRENT could be referenced in the rules qualification and
> > >     actions.  I  don't like this simple way, but I think it's the
> > >     only possibility that would work  without  reincarnating  the
> > >     instance rule system.
> >
> > Good description of the problem.  If adding BEFORE/AFTER makes it easier
> > to program, do it.  I don't think we are losing any functionality by
> > doing this, and the rule system is advertized as being broken, so there
> > is probably not a huge installed base.
> >
> > We now have something that doesn't work.  If you can get it working, do
> > it.  The change makes it clearer to the user exactly how the rule is
> > going to behave, too.
>
> Jan, I remember you steering away from rewrite cleanups because we were
> so close to 6.3.  Any chance you can make those changes for 6.4, or are
> you already working on them?   We really need cleanup in the rewrite
> area, and I understand you can do it.

    I  hoped to get pl/pgsql finished before 6.4, but since I got
    some private trouble and much serious work, I  fear  to  miss
    that target too.  Haven't had my fingers on PostgreSQL at all
    for the last weeks.

    But you're right, the rewrite handler still  needs  work  and
    since  I  spent  much time to understand the code it would be
    wasted time if someone else has to do it.

    Let's see if I find some time sometimes :-)

>
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
> maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
>   +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
>   +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)
>


Until later, 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) #



Wed, 8 Jul 1998 20:34:45 +0200 (MET DST)
jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Re: [PG95-DEV] Rule system
>     I  hoped to get pl/pgsql finished before 6.4, but since I got
>     some private trouble and much serious work, I  fear  to  miss
>     that target too.  Haven't had my fingers on PostgreSQL at all
>     for the last weeks.
> 
>     But you're right, the rewrite handler still  needs  work  and
>     since  I  spent  much time to understand the code it would be
>     wasted time if someone else has to do it.
> 
>     Let's see if I find some time sometimes :-)

That would be good.  The pl/pgsql would be nice, but the rewrite system
is more significant to users right now.

-- 
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

Thu, 9 Jul 1998 11:05:56 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PG95-DEV] Rule system
> >
> > > >     The  simple way is to reduce the capabilities of the Postgres
> > > >     rule system. Changing the syntax of the CREATE RULE to
> > > >
> > > >         CREATE RULE rule AS { BEFORE | AFTER } event TO table
> > > >             DO [ INSTEAD ] { action | NOTHING }
> > > >
> > > >     would tell the rewrite handler, if the rule actions  have  to
> > > >     be  applied  before or after the query. Respectively only NEW
> > > >     or CURRENT could be referenced in the rules qualification and
> > > >     actions.  I  don't like this simple way, but I think it's the
> > > >     only possibility that would work  without  reincarnating  the
> > > >     instance rule system.
> > >
> > > Good description of the problem.  If adding BEFORE/AFTER makes it easier
> > > to program, do it.  I don't think we are losing any functionality by
> > > doing this, and the rule system is advertized as being broken, so there
> > > is probably not a huge installed base.
> > >
> > > We now have something that doesn't work.  If you can get it working, do
> > > it.  The change makes it clearer to the user exactly how the rule is
> > > going to behave, too.
> >
> > Jan, I remember you steering away from rewrite cleanups because we were
> > so close to 6.3.  Any chance you can make those changes for 6.4, or are
> > you already working on them?   We really need cleanup in the rewrite
> > area, and I understand you can do it.
> 
>     I  hoped to get pl/pgsql finished before 6.4, but since I got
>     some private trouble and much serious work, I  fear  to  miss
>     that target too.  Haven't had my fingers on PostgreSQL at all
>     for the last weeks.
> 
>     But you're right, the rewrite handler still  needs  work  and
>     since  I  spent  much time to understand the code it would be
>     wasted time if someone else has to do it.
> 
>     Let's see if I find some time sometimes :-)
> 

Just curious if you have had any time to look into cleaning up the
rewrite system for 6.4?

-- 
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

Mon, 3 Aug 1998 23:45:33 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [PG95-DEV] Rule system