AW: Re: [SQL] Rules with Conditions: Bug, or Misunderst anding

From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: AW: Re: [SQL] Rules with Conditions: Bug, or Misunderst anding
Date: 2000-12-01 09:13:40
Message-ID: 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA68796336815E@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> If the system were capable of determining that either rule1 or rule2
> condition will always hold, perhaps it could deduce that the original
> query on the view will never be applied. However, I doubt that we
> really want to let loose an automated theorem prover on the results
> of every rewrite ...

Yes, a theorem prover is way too complex, and can not cover
the case where the application guards against the "apply original query" case.

Would it be possible to push the elog down to the heap access,
and only throw the elog if a heap access is actually about to be performed
on a view ?

Andreas

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Philip Warner 2000-12-01 10:13:28 Re: beta testing version
Previous Message Zeugswetter Andreas SB 2000-12-01 09:01:15 AW: beta testing version