Ancient comment in rules.sgml

Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> writes:

There's a comment beginning with:
<!-- What's happening with this? If it doesn't come back, remove this section. -->
in rules.sgml around line 2437. It seems this has been there since 2003.
Do we need to keep this?

Well, the point is that the whole para after that is commented out.

The para in question seems to have shown up in 20a071326, and
at the time it began

+<Para>
+    Another situation are cases on UPDATE where it depends on the
+    change of an attribute if an action should be performed or
+    not. In <ProductName>Postgres</ProductName> version 6.4, the
+    attribute specification for rule events is disabled (it will have
+    it's comeback latest in 6.5, maybe earlier 
+    - stay tuned). So for now the only way to
+    create a rule as in the shoelace_log example is to do it with
+    a rule qualification. That results in an extra query that is
+    performed allways, even if the attribute of interest cannot

I think it's a safe bet at this point that that feature isn't ever
coming back, so I'd be good with ripping out the whole para.

regards, tom lane

Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> writes:

There's a comment beginning with:
<!-- What's happening with this? If it doesn't come back, remove this section. -->
in rules.sgml around line 2437. It seems this has been there since 2003.
Do we need to keep this?

Well, the point is that the whole para after that is commented out.

Yes, so my question was we could safely remove the whole comment or
not.

The para in question seems to have shown up in 20a071326, and
at the time it began

+<Para>
+    Another situation are cases on UPDATE where it depends on the
+    change of an attribute if an action should be performed or
+    not. In <ProductName>Postgres</ProductName> version 6.4, the
+    attribute specification for rule events is disabled (it will have
+    it's comeback latest in 6.5, maybe earlier 
+    - stay tuned). So for now the only way to
+    create a rule as in the shoelace_log example is to do it with
+    a rule qualification. That results in an extra query that is
+    performed allways, even if the attribute of interest cannot

I think it's a safe bet at this point that that feature isn't ever
coming back, so I'd be good with ripping out the whole para.

Ok, I will remove the comment in all supported branches (after next
moinor releases are out). Patch attached.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 09:45:49AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:

Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> writes:
I think it's a safe bet at this point that that feature isn't ever
coming back, so I'd be good with ripping out the whole para.

Ok, I will remove the comment in all supported branches (after next
minor releases are out). Patch attached.

+1.  Looks fine to me.
--
Michael

Ok, I will remove the comment in all supported branches (after next
minor releases are out). Patch attached.

+1. Looks fine to me.

Done.

Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp