From: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules Bernd Helmle |
Date: | 2009-01-24 20:49:22 |
Message-ID: | 394D0B0C88BCB18114C7A345@imhotep.credativ.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
--On Samstag, Januar 24, 2009 14:17:58 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
wrote:
> ON UPDATE DO INSTEAD
> UPDATE base_table SET base_col_1 = new.derived_col_1, base_col_2 ...
> WHERE CURRENT OF VIEW;
>
> and the rewriter would interpret this appropriately. You'd end up with
> essentially the same results as with the other syntax, but there is more
> flexibility here to omit columns, store results computed from columns,
> etc.
I like this idea more than Plan A or B, since it's much closer to the
current rule syntax. What i'm missing is some notion about CHECK OPTION. We
surely want to support that in way.
--
Thanks
Bernd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-25 01:42:47 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules Bernd Helmle |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2009-01-24 20:15:59 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules Bernd Helmle |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Koichi Suzuki | 2009-01-24 22:22:40 | Re: V4 of PITR performance improvement for 8.4 |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2009-01-24 20:15:59 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules Bernd Helmle |