Psql doesn't allow multiple action rules
Hi,
now I'm really sure that at least only a few ppl might use
the current rule system.
Psql cannot send the queries for DEFINE RULE with multiple
actions to the backend. For this feature, the single colon
separated statements are enclosed in []'s. But psql doesn't
handle []'s and sends down the query at the first occurence
of a colon. And a colon cannot be escaped in psql, it must
occur in a literal string.
The question is now, should we tell psql that []'s have to be
treated like ()'s or should we change the syntax of CREATE
RULE in the backends parser from [] to ()?
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) #
jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) writes:
The question is now, should we tell psql that []'s have to be
treated like ()'s or should we change the syntax of CREATE
RULE in the backends parser from [] to ()?
Is the syntax of CREATE RULE defined by the SQL standard (or modeled
on something else that is in the standard), or are we just making it
up out of whole cloth?
If it's defined by the standard then I think we have no choice but to
change psql.
If it's our own invention, I think switching to () might be a better
idea. I'm not that worried about changing psql, but I do wonder how
many other applications might "know" a similar amount about SQL
syntax...
regards, tom lane
Import Notes
Reply to msg id not found: YourmessageofSat15Aug1998201707+0200m0z7kt2-000EBPC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de | Resolved by subject fallback
jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) writes:
The question is now, should we tell psql that []'s have to be
treated like ()'s or should we change the syntax of CREATE
RULE in the backends parser from [] to ()?Is the syntax of CREATE RULE defined by the SQL standard (or modeled
on something else that is in the standard), or are we just making it
up out of whole cloth?If it's defined by the standard then I think we have no choice but to
change psql.If it's our own invention, I think switching to () might be a better
idea. I'm not that worried about changing psql, but I do wonder how
many other applications might "know" a similar amount about SQL
syntax...
Yes, if standard requires[], then let's use it. If not, use ().
--
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)