From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>, List pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: COPY view |
Date: | 2006-06-14 21:35:22 |
Message-ID: | 200606142135.k5ELZMg26613@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
>
> >
> > why do we agree on a patch, implement it and reject it then?
> > would be easier to reject it before actually implementing it ...
> > it is quite hard to explain to a customer that something is rejected
> > after approval - even if things are written properly ...
> >
> >
>
>
> That's a good point and I understand the pain.
>
> Could we maybe do this?: Take the patch as it is now, and if/when we
> get the more general syntax we do a little magic under the hood to turn
> COPY viewname TO
> into
> COPY (select * from viewname) TO
We could. But we would do it because we want that behavior on its own,
rather than doing it just to support a feature we added in the past.
The question is, if we were adding the query syntax _now_, would we want
to do views that way? If so, we can add the patch and just fix it up
when we get the queries.
--
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-06-14 21:36:25 | Re: COPY view |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-06-14 21:31:44 | Re: COPY view |