I suggest that the CREATE RULE syntax be relaxed so that
it is legal to have a list of SELECT commands in a rule.

I'll argue that:
  1) The change is simple (2 lines in gram.y).  Diff is
attached.
  2) It breaks nothing (more things become legal)
  3) It makes the parser agree with the published syntax,
     which currently makes no distinction about SELECT
commands.
  4) It makes the language more "regular" in that SELECT
     commands are no longer special.:

Diff is an attachment because of line-wrapping.  I'm new
here
so I don't know if this works.  But as I said it's only 2
lines.

++ kevin 



--- 
Kevin O'Gorman  (805) 650-6274  mailto:kogorman@pacbell.net
Permanent e-mail forwarder: 
mailto:Kevin.O'Gorman.64@Alum.Dartmouth.org
At school: mailto:kogorman@cs.ucsb.edu
Web: http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~kogorman/index.html
Web: http://trixie.kosman.via.ayuda.com/~kevin/index.html

"There is a freedom lying beyond circumstance,
derived from the direct intuition that life can
be grounded upon its absorption in what is
changeless amid change" 
   -- Alfred North Whitehead
Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:52:30 -0700
"Kevin O'Gorman" <kogorman@pacbell.net>
Proposed relaxation of CREATE RULE syntax
"Kevin O'Gorman" <kogorman@pacbell.net> writes:
> I suggest that the CREATE RULE syntax be relaxed so that
> it is legal to have a list of SELECT commands in a rule.

I don't have any strong objection to this myself, but it would probably
be a good idea to wait and see what Jan thinks of it before we change
it.  (Kevin, Jan Wieck is the main developer of our rules stuff, and
is more likely to know about any gotchas in the idea than the rest of
us.)  I think Jan is still in Poland someplace, but hopefully he'll
be back in touch before long.

>   2) It breaks nothing (more things become legal)

Given our earlier discussions, it might only be that it exposes things
that don't work :-(.

			regards, tom lane

Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:59:51 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Proposed relaxation of CREATE RULE syntax 
Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> "Kevin O'Gorman" <kogorman@pacbell.net> writes:
> > I suggest that the CREATE RULE syntax be relaxed so that
> > it is legal to have a list of SELECT commands in a rule.
> 
> I don't have any strong objection to this myself, but it would probably
> be a good idea to wait and see what Jan thinks of it before we change
> it.  (Kevin, Jan Wieck is the main developer of our rules stuff, and
> is more likely to know about any gotchas in the idea than the rest of
> us.)  I think Jan is still in Poland someplace, but hopefully he'll
> be back in touch before long.
> 
> >   2) It breaks nothing (more things become legal)
> 
> Given our earlier discussions, it might only be that it exposes things
> that don't work :-(.
> 
>                         regards, tom lane

Of course, wait for the guy in charge of this area.  It's
not urgent for
me anyway, because I'm going to be working with a variant
pretty soon
anyhow, to support my research. (I'm gonna have to do things
in the
backend that you would not want distributed).

++ kevin


-- 
Kevin O'Gorman  (805) 650-6274  mailto:kogorman@pacbell.net
Permanent e-mail forwarder: 
mailto:Kevin.O'Gorman.64@Alum.Dartmouth.org
At school: mailto:kogorman@cs.ucsb.edu
Web: http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~kogorman/index.html
Web: http://trixie.kosman.via.ayuda.com/~kevin/index.html

"There is a freedom lying beyond circumstance,
derived from the direct intuition that life can
be grounded upon its absorption in what is
changeless amid change" 
   -- Alfred North Whitehead

Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:45:34 -0700
"Kevin O'Gorman" <kogorman@pacbell.net>
Re: Proposed relaxation of CREATE RULE syntax