| From: | Keith Parks <emkxp01(at)mtcc(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | jwieck(at)debis(dot)com, maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Rules and views (was Re: [HACKERS] Rules: 2nd patch) |
| Date: | 1998-08-19 23:06:49 |
| Message-ID: | 199808192306.AAA02549@mtcc.demon.co.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
I vote to make them builtins too.
Keith.
Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
>
> > If nobody votes against, I would like to make them builtins
> > as pg_get_ruledef() and pg_get_viewdef() and then setup the
> > appropriate views (pg_rule and pg_view) in template1 by
> > initdb like we do it with pg_user. It cannot break anything,
> > except that a rule action the two functions cannot handle
> > will make the new views unusable. But it would be a really
> > powerful possibility for pg_dump or just useful to see what
> > that damn event qual and parsetree's in pg_rewrite came from.
> >
> > Comments?
> >
>
> Go, Jan, go.
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | t-ishii | 1998-08-20 01:15:52 | Re: new MB patch and pg_type oid problem |
| Previous Message | Silvestre Dorador | 1998-08-19 21:28:56 | (no subject) |