Re: Insert Updates Deletes on Views; Triggers on System Tables

Doug McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org> writes:
> Raymond <support(at)bigriverinfotech(dot)com> writes:
>> believe a before-trigger is required to enforce this rule. And speaking of
>> rules, cannot utilize the Postgres rules system (presume similiar to Apache
>> rewrite engine) as database MUST remain very "traditional Oracle" centric;
>> hence the functions, triggers, etc.

> I don't see the point of this--obviously your function definitions,
> DDL etc will require a slightly different syntax for the PG database,
> so why not add rules in if you want updatable views?

It seems to me to make sense to use any functionality for which you
can find an equivalent in the other DB. Thus, there's nothing wrong
with writing some rules to construct an updatable view, if you can
create the equivalent updatable view in Oracle.

Taking a narrower view of compatibility than that will just leave you
fighting with one hand tied behind your back --- and, more than likely,
stuck with Oracle in the long run. I've never seen an Oracle DB that
didn't have some nonstandard Oracle-isms in it somewhere.

You may be able to use the same DML commands in both systems, but
requiring DDL to be the same will be a losing game.

regards, tom lane