| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Karl O(dot) Pinc" <kop(at)meme(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Allowing COPY into views |
| Date: | 2007-04-19 22:37:10 |
| Message-ID: | 20070419223710.GB27050@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark wrote:
>
> "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>
> > The threads to updatable views have concluded rejecting the patches, and
> > with ideas that require rather extensive rewriting of the rule manager,
>
> I have some ideas on a different approach to this if anyone's thinking of
> starting fresh
What ideas?
> but I had the impression that the patches were rejected because
> they were unnecessarily complex, not because the overall approach was
> rejected.
Well, there was the unneeded complexity as one argument, but the "with
check option" stuff needed a big rework as well.
http://groups.google.es/group/pgsql.hackers/browse_thread/thread/ed69543ea417a2f/d0b628881ead1e05
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-04-19 23:12:15 | Re: Fragmentation project |
| Previous Message | Darcy Buskermolen | 2007-04-19 22:21:09 | Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for? |