From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | ken(at)sunward(dot)org |
Cc: | "'PostgreSQL pg-general List'" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Why does an ON SELECT rule have to be named "_RETURN"? |
Date: | 2006-02-12 23:43:11 |
Message-ID: | 25704.1139787791@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Ken Winter" <ken(at)sunward(dot)org> writes:
> * Why this constraint?
> * Would anything break if I were allowed to get away with my little trick?
> * Is there any way to get around the constraint?
The reason why the table is converted to a view is that ancient pg_dump
dumps used to create views in exactly that way (make a table and then
add an ON SELECT rule) and so when we started making a hard distinction
between tables and views, we needed to force the conversion to occur.
The notion of a real table that has an ON SELECT rule seems fairly
broken to me in any case. I think you should be complaining to the
authors of your client-side tools that they won't do what you want.
It would probably be quite a trivial change to get them to support
data entry forms against views, but changing the backend on this
point won't be an easy sell.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-02-12 23:45:12 | Re: [GENERAL] Number format problem |
Previous Message | Ken Winter | 2006-02-12 23:35:13 | Why does an ON SELECT rule have to be named "_RETURN"? |